Mark Twain quote

[ruffrecords]

My wife just read me a quotation by Mark Twain:

"Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly, and for the same reason"

Seems some things never change.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Spiritworks]

I get the feeling that it is much worse now than when Twain wrote that.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I get the feeling that it is much worse now than when Twain wrote that.

I find it hard to believe that it is worse now, it has always been pretty bad, but the spending and reach of government is growing like topsy. Good if you believe that more government is the answer, bad if you believe more government is the problem (like I do).

I was hopeful that having so many camera phones in the audience would make it so much easier to catch politicians saying different things from both sides of their mouth,  but even that internet accountability doesn't seem to slow them down.

Speaking of politicians, why is it that we citizens can go to jail for lying to the government (just ask Martha Stewart), but politicians can blatantly lie on the floor of the senate with no consequences?  When Harry Reid was asked about his notorious lie on the floor of the Senate that presidential candidate Romney didn't pay income taxes, Reid replied, something like "it (the lie) worked and he lost".

That politician needs changing like Mark Twain's proverbial baby diaper, for the exact same reason. 

Harry Ried is not the only one, but he will not be missed by me.  (just look at his blocking the Yucca mountain nuclear waste program and what that has cost taxpayers  from lawsuits).

JR

 

[bruno2000]

Karma is a bitch.......
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[ruffrecords]

I get the feeling that it is much worse now than when Twain wrote that.

I find it hard to believe that it is worse now, it has always been pretty bad,

I think some aspects are improving. We are a month away from a general election here in the UK. We have had a coalition government for the first time in many years (since WWII I think) and in some ways it has worked quite well - at least it stopped some (but not all) of the more radical policies being implemented.  And it makes a nice change from the two party system - which bunch of bastards shall we trust this time??

The internet revolution has meant people are better informed than ever and the UK politicians have been caught with their pants down on several occasions. Politicians continue not to listen to the people and that has allowed minority parties to achieve some shock results that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, simply because the people are so pissed off with politicians that they are prepared to vote for a third or fourth alternative.

For my money, the best thing you can have is a weak government that is hard to overthrow - and that's a coalition. That way those of us who actually generate the wealth can get on with it without too much bloody interference.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

I get the feeling that it is much worse now than when Twain wrote that.

I find it hard to believe that it is worse now, it has always been pretty bad,

I think some aspects are improving. We are a month away from a general election here in the UK. We have had a coalition government for the first time in many years (since WWII I think) and in some ways it has worked quite well - at least it stopped some (but not all) of the more radical policies being implemented.  And it makes a nice change from the two party system - which bunch of bastards shall we trust this time??

The internet revolution has meant people are better informed than ever and the UK politicians have been caught with their pants down on several occasions. Politicians continue not to listen to the people and that has allowed minority parties to achieve some shock results that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, simply because the people are so pissed off with politicians that they are prepared to vote for a third or fourth alternative.

I though being caught with their pants down was an old UK tradition (Profumo affair et al).  ;D ;D

I can actually see the PM Questions session on CSPAN over here. I prefer that direct verbal sparring to the snarky spin and verbal back stabbing our politicians practice. It is much harder to lie to someones face, while I suspect some still manage. 

For my money, the best thing you can have is a weak government that is hard to overthrow - and that's a coalition. That way those of us who actually generate the wealth can get on with it without too much bloody interference.

Cheers

Ian

Amen... There is a place for central government but a relatively small place... the more local the governance the more direct reflection of the peoples wishes.

 

[Andy Peters]

Speaking of politicians, why is it that we citizens can go to jail for lying to the government (just ask Martha Stewart), but politicians can blatantly lie on the floor of the senate with no consequences?

The specific answer to your question is that Martha Stewart went to jail for lying under oath (perjury).

All of the lying done by various elected and hope-to-be-elected officials is not done as part of sworn testimony. Remember, Bill Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) for lying under oath about the affair.

Of course that is the legal answer, and it doesn't make their lying any less injurious.

-a

 

[JohnRoberts]

Speaking of politicians, why is it that we citizens can go to jail for lying to the government (just ask Martha Stewart), but politicians can blatantly lie on the floor of the senate with no consequences?

The specific answer to your question is that Martha Stewart went to jail for lying under oath (perjury).

My question was more about how can the leader of the senate blatantly lie about a major candidate in the middle of a presidential campaign, with no consequences? 

Martha was Indicted for securities fraud, making false statements and obstruction of justice for her handling of a personal stock trade, effectively insider trading. When they couldn't get the headline charge to stick, they convicted her of "lying to investigators" and obstruction of justice.

Her broker was actually convicted of "perjury",  Note: It is possible to be charged with both lying to investigators and perjury for the same lie if you repeat it under oath in court.

Both perjury and lying to federal investigators are felonies that carry 5 year sentences each, so don't think that because you are not under oath in court, you can get away with lying..  (Unless you are a senator on the floor of the senate.).  ;D ;D  BTW, signing a false statement like a dishonest tax return  is perjury

All of the lying done by various elected and hope-to-be-elected officials is not done as part of sworn testimony. Remember, Bill Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) for lying under oath about the affair.

Of course that is the legal answer, and it doesn't make their lying any less injurious.

-a

I have posted before that IMO all political candidates should be sworn in to tell the truth (subject to perjury charges) from the minute they declare for public office until they retire. Why should they be allowed to brazenly lie?

A citizen speaking in congress, answering congressmen's questions in committee would get the cell right next to Martha for lying to congress... 

For the record I don't think anybody should lie....  (Unless your girlfriend is asking if her butt looks big in those jeans).  8)

JR

PS: I love Samuel Clemens and that quip is a golden oldy.

 

[Spiritworks]

Do as I say, not as I do..............................
When is a Politician not lying?
"Read my lips"

 

[living sounds]

Mark Twain was awesome. Liberal hero.

In politics as in several other fields the wrong type of person too often makes it to the top. Ambitious, greedy, un-caring bastards. 

Replacing politicians more often may be a good idea in general. It's certainly true the US Senate is dominated by very old white men.

But looking at humanity's current collective inability to adress let alone solve our most pressing problems, - interrelated issues like climate change, wealth/income inequality, overpopulation - the problem appers to be more systematic. We've dug a hole for ourselves with overconsumption, dependence on growth in a finite system,  private and public debth etc. in an increasingly complex world that few people sufficiently understand. They're far too busy with the jobs they hate and the products they buy and too disillusioned to care anyway.  Democracy itself is in a crisis, I think.

Bad politicians were around in Mark Twains day as they are today, but the problem's they were facing seem straightforward and quaint against today's.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I have posted before that IMO all political candidates should be sworn in to tell the truth (subject to perjury charges) from the minute they declare for public office until they retire. Why should they be allowed to brazenly lie?

A citizen speaking in congress, answering congressmen's questions in committee would get the cell right next to Martha for lying to congress... 

For the record I don't think anybody should lie....  (Unless your girlfriend is asking if her butt looks big in those jeans).  8)

JR

Well I think there are several reasons, some obvious, others not, for why lying is s.o.p for politicians.

The obvious one is of course personal gain. And with all of them pretty much in the same boat it'll take a lot to get even a discussion of what you propose on the table. I mean, why would one politician advocate for punishment for liars when he could be next to be punished?

The possibly less obvious and more debatable one would be when telling the truth causes a negative effect for the nation. I mean, suppose you have something relatively bad happening and you tell the truth, and the currency takes a nosedive. Several interest groups would immediately blame you for it, regardless of what it actually was that justified the drop by itself (which is borderline nonsensical semantics seeing that the value of a currency is simply 'faith' to begin with).

I'd say that second point is probably just a remnant of traits within a species that isn't as evolved as it thinks it is. The long-term effects of the truth, if it was followed by many, would be much better than repeatedly telling lies. I think that's also very true when it comes to foreign policy.

But then again; this crap won't change. There's a specific class in power and they won't willingly relinquish it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

As an engineer/scientist (mostly?) I like to think of facts and truth as finite singular things, but the more I observe of popular culture, politics, governance, etc. It seems "truth" is much more pliable, and something to be shaped by the opinion leaders with loudest megaphones.

First the hot button (or should I call it change button) for global warming/climate change. It is safe to say that there is more than enough room for competing theories hard if not impossible to prove about the specific or dominant causes of climate change.  It seems politics these days is about managing the "truth". I saw a report today about advocates for the human based change model, attacking scientists who don't toe the party line. Doing things like writing letters to college presidents questioning funding sources, a thinly veiled attempt to suppress dissenting views.

There are strategies used in politics by actors when they are out of power (see Alinsky Rules for Radicals) that are unreasonable (unethical, certainly not fair) when used by people in power.

Not to dwell on that one issue, but another disconnect from the truth is reported in Iraq, where the Sunni minority do not accept the demographic reality that a proper representative government will reflect their minority status. They believe they make up 50% of the population so deserve 50% of the political power. .(they don't).

There are too many examples of this distorted truths to list (race- civil rights, wealth-income, etc). My current sense about popular wisdom or truth is that it belongs to the holder of the biggest, loudest megaphone. The group think within some political factions is hard to understand from a different frame of reference.

THIS IS WHY I PREFER ELECTRONICS... THE LAWS ARE INVIOLATE AND FACTS DON"T CHANGE.

JR   

 

[living sounds]

Not to dwell on that one issue, but another disconnect from the truth is reported in Iraq, where the Sunni minority do not accept the demographic reality that a proper representative government will reflect their minority status. They believe they make up 50% of the population so deserve 50% of the political power. .(they don't).

There are too many examples of this distorted truths to list (race- civil rights, wealth-income, etc). My current sense about popular wisdom or truth is that it belongs to the holder of the biggest, loudest megaphone. The group think within some political factions is hard to understand from a different frame of reference.

Yes, if people understood the magnitude of the problems better and actually had possibility to change that they would be much more engaged in the political process and vote accordingly.  But the political system is rigged just like the economy (they're interconnected, of course).


Here's an interesting graph about income (in)equality and perception:

The one at the bottom is what 92% per cent out of 5000 randomly selected US citizens thought the distribution should look like.  A lot of them still cry "socialist" at the mention of insignficantly higher taxes for the rich...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes, if people understood the magnitude of the problems better and actually had possibility to change that they would be much more engaged in the political process and vote accordingly.  But the political system is rigged just like the economy (they're interconnected, of course).


Here's an interesting graph about income (in)equality and perception:

The one at the bottom is what 92% per cent out of 5000 randomly selected US citizens thought the distribution should look like.  A lot of them still cry "socialist" at the mention of insignficantly higher taxes for the rich...

We've been around this tree before...  Of course wealth redistribution is popular (duh), but it reduces wealth, not increases it.

Get me the chart for world wealth/poverty.

Over recent decades the standard of living for the formerly poor in China is much improved, while still below western levels.

Redistribution is popular until you run out of other peoples money... Trade and capitalism can create more wealth.  But you don't get more wealth just because you feel like you should have more.  ;D You have to work to create wealth.

opinions vary... Several countries in South America have already run out of wealth to redistribute .  Pres Obama is down in Panama this weekend having a sit down with Raoul... Checking off another box on his bucket list. The canal is a monument to world trade, maybe we can import some cigars from Raoul?

JR

PS: It's been a while since we talked about mandated increased minimum wage rates. SF recently passed something like $15 (by 2018) MW . Borderlands a bookstore there is shutting down the bookstore portion because the higher wage makes them unprofitable. They have a lunch counter they they will keep open for now, assuming other food providers in SF will raise their prices too.  So the unintended consequence is some jobs will go away, and menial service jobs that can raise their fees will remain.

While I predict robot burger flippers and fries making machines replacing lots of menial labor tasks with customers paying checks with their apple watch, no humans required..

 

[living sounds]

Studies have shown that inequality actually hampers growth and innovation. In a recent talk show over here we had people from our local variant of a libertarian party actually singing the praise of the 19th century, how good it all was with the sons from the country going to the cities in the hope of finding a rich wife... Instead of, e.g.,  studying engineering...

The explosion of innovation as well as the widespread prosperity enjoyed in the decades after WW2 was due to the "wealth" destroyed by the wars, largely owned by the top per cent. If you're interested, Thomas Pickettys "Capital in the 21st century" has all the math and statistics (that's why according to a survey only 2.4 % of readers are able to finish it, not a light read).

Rational taxation schemes have nothing to do with the commodity-reliant invasive overregulated madness going on in places like Venezuela.

China.... that's funny, since it is the poster child for a regulated economy in the 'benign dictatorship' (economically) vains. They make sure free trade serves the greater good and use all the tools availible to steer it.

The neo-liberal model of the minimal state on the other hand has been at work for decades now in many other poor exporting countries like Bangladesh, where people have been promised prosperity just as long, while still slaving away in the textile industry.

 

[JohnRoberts]

;D ;D ;D

I haven't read Piketty and don't plan to  BUT

An MIT grad student named Matt Rognlie enters a discussion on this topic by posting a comment on the blog Marginal Revolution. He proposes something that hasn’t been brought up before: Piketty has not properly accounted for depreciation of investment. If you account for that, he claims most of the capital increase comes from housing. And if that’s the case, we should see a slowing of inequality growth.

Got to love arguments about economics and the future.... that can't be proved...

My comment about Chinese workers lifted out of poverty is not suggesting anything favorable about their government. Central planning can work for a while, and massive growth can conceal a lot of flaws, when that growth slows the flaws will become apparent. The formerly impoverished Chinese workers is where all that western wealth went, that the populists claim the rich people took.

The rich will still get richer generally because they are smarter and work harder.  Most of the poor do not work smart or hard. 

Government can not create wealth and is a serial wealth destroyer.

JR

 

[Rocinante]

I don't really engage anymore in political arguments but this time I....


So your more inclined to believe the politician who gets funding by the oil company (maybe not directly but in some way, via some subsidiary, in some form they do) over the 95% of scientists who actually study climatology?
Not surprising.
You, I, all Americans are guilty of having too much.
But we would rather bury our head in the sand than deal with the real issue; we are destroying the Earth.
The temperature is rising.
Oklahoma for instance; had 5 over 5.0 earthquakes in the past 15 years averaging about one every three years and a few under 5.0 a year over the last 20.
Ever since we have been frakking and in 2014 alone they have had 500 (read that again its not an exaggeration) over 5.0 earthquakes.  This is a place that never had earthquakes.  The “natural gas” companies say they are not sure if the two are related they are “looking into it with their” well paid “scientists”.
No doubt thy work smart and hard.
At lying. and getting people like you to support them.

Can't create wealth?
It sucks you either don't remember or never knew. 
I don't want you to forget.
I don't want any of us to.
Cause I'll take Mark Twain's liars any day over the ones we have now.

More US soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have committed suicide than have died in firefights with insurgents, Taliban, Al-Qeada, etc...
They're kids.
Our kids.
Think about that.

They are your "poor" who do not “work smart or hard”.
They're kids.  They're kids being put in a horrible situation cause of us.
You and me bub.
Cause we didn't stop the liars.

Let's clear some things up though.
Do you know who/what Halliburton is?
Halliburton is the company that won the NO BID oil contract to take control of the Iraqi oil refineries directly after the American invasion.
You understand what that means; no other oil company was allowed to bid on the Iraqi oil refineries that were gonna fund the war and give you smart hard working people more money.
You remember why we went to Iraq correct?  Because they were terrorists?
Nope.
Because they were responsible for 911?
Nope there too.
911  was done by a group of American CIA trained Saudi nationalists who were hiding in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan so we invaded Afghanistan and killed over a hundred thousand people.  99.99% of whom had nothing to do with 911.  That's like a bunch of dudes from LA blowing up Trafalgar square and hiding in Saskatchewan so Great Britain invades Montreal and kills over 100,000 men, woman, and children because they had a corrupt government.  And then eventually after invading another country they kill the dudes from LA.

Do you remember why we invaded Iraq?
Because our president and vice president (and their staff) lied to congress and the American people (and the world) and told them that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.  And therefore he was a threat, I mean a terrorist, I mean he did 911. 
I love me some Mark Twain.
I'll repeat the question
Do you know who/what Halliburton is?

Birth defects in northern Iraq have risen 200 percent. There are infants being born (if you an call them that) with just legs and and a stomach.  This is because we put depleted uranium rods from US nuclear facilities inside our daisy cutter missiles and bombarded Northen Irag mountains where we know insurgents, Al-Quaida, the Taliban, etc.. are hiding out. It's a win-win situation military wise and economically. 
a. the US gets rid of the highly radioactive uranium rods. 
b. no matter what we force the insurgents out either by bombing them and then shoot them if they try to flea or their bodies are so riddled with cancer they'll die in the mountains within months anyways.
Who cares about the innocent woman and children in the area. Casualties of war right?
I betcha the guys who came up with that knew how to work smart and hard.
Scientist/engineers.

Halliburton is a multinational corporation who operates oil services.  It's CEO had been the ex-vice president Dick Cheney who “left” the company shortly before his first day in the white house (because it's totally and blatantly illegal) of course he still owned a ton of stock along with George W Bush and their other cronies who too know how to work smart and hard.



I have no doubt how intelligent you are.
But your lack of empathy is... frightening (albeit not surprising).
You have your soapbox for which you can preach your message of intolerance.
I don't know why though, you have already won.
To those of us who employ, fight for, and work with your “not smart working or hard working” its insulting though.  To them.  And those of us who fight for them.

My comment about Chinese workers lifted out of poverty is not suggesting anything favorable about their government. Central planning can work for a while, and massive growth can conceal a lot of flaws, when that growth slows the flaws will become apparent. The formerly impoverished Chinese workers is where all that western wealth went, that the populists claim the rich people took.

The rich will still get richer generally because they are smarter and work harder.  Most of the poor do not work smart or hard. 

Government can not create wealth and is a serial wealth destroyer.

JR

 

[rob_gould]

...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't really engage anymore in political arguments but this time I....

Yup political arguments can be frustrating... big on "truth" but not so big on "fact".  Welcome to the scrum . it seems like you have been saving this up.

So your more inclined to believe the politician who gets funding by the oil company (maybe not directly but in some way, via some subsidiary, in some form they do) over the 95% of scientists who actually study climatology?
Not surprising.

I am not inclined to believe ANY politician, their agendas are often transparent and routinely the exact opposite of what they say.. It's almost humorous how they name major legislation.

You, I, all Americans are guilty of having too much.

Yes were are blessed by our wealth of natural resources, chance of fortune regarding much of our history, while there has been some sacrifice along the way (world wars et al) .

But we would rather bury our head in the sand than deal with the real issue; we are destroying the Earth.
The temperature is rising.

Temperature has risen and fallen many times over the millennia (ice ages, etc).  In fact the global temperature has never been constant. Who gets to say that if we could regulate the temperature, what temp is optimal? Lots of new farmland up north, new beachfront property in lots of places.  I realize this answer sounds a little flippant but I have written a great deal about this over the years.

Here is TMI about climate change.. no I didn't even read all this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/09/how-to-convince-a-climate-skeptic-hes-wrong/ 

Oklahoma for instance; had 5 over 5.0 earthquakes in the past 15 years averaging about one every three years and a few under 5.0 a year over the last 20.
Ever since we have been frakking and in 2014 alone they have had 500 (read that again its not an exaggeration) over 5.0 earthquakes.  This is a place that never had earthquakes.  The “natural gas” companies say they are not sure if the two are related they are “looking into it with their” well paid “scientists”.

A woman in OK just sued about fraqing caused earthquakes when her chimney collapsed.

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/EP9p9earthquakes.pdf  here's a link to historical earthquake records in OK... first recorded in 1882, but probably not the first...

I have questioned whether fraqing induced tremblers are relieving stress from some fault that would cause a more damaging quake later, or would never happen. As I have posted before in several Europen countries they have decided to not fraq in consideration of the the expensive (very old) buildings that could be damaged by even mild tremblers (an economic calculation). 

No doubt thy work smart and hard.
At lying. and getting people like you to support them.

People like me? is that a veiled ad hominum...?

Can't create wealth?
It sucks you either don't remember or never knew. 
I don't want you to forget.
I don't want any of us to.
Cause I'll take Mark Twain's liars any day over the ones we have now.

Not sure what this means... The politicians today have much larger appetites for how much they want to control. They just took over healthcare and are expanding their hooks into banking and energy utilities. They are not smarter but I fear we are getting dumber, or more easily diverted from seeing the gamesmanship they are playing on us. 

More US soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have committed suicide than have died in firefights with insurgents, Taliban, Al-Qeada, etc...
They're kids.
Our kids.
Think about that.

As a veteran myself (drafted in 1970) in am sympathetic to the poor treatment our military receives. I find it difficult to stomach the BS where the soldiers who were wounded at the Ft Hood terrorist attack, were recently given purple hearts, but rather than having their injuries treated as combat related, our leaders choose to call it workplace violence...for "political" reasons.

As a veteran I am upset about the handling of Bo Bergdahl... while it appears the truth may finally get some sunlight (lets hope). To say he served with distinction, and his fellow soldiers who disagree had some political agenda is blatantly dishonest.

They are your "poor" who do not “work smart or hard”.
They're kids.  They're kids being put in a horrible situation cause of us.
You and me bub.
Cause we didn't stop the liars.

There is a new book by Judith Miller the former NYT reported who was accused of being complicit in spreading misinformation in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.  She tells a different story... but this theme of "lies" is part of the political legend.

Let's clear some things up though.
Do you know who/what Halliburton is?

HAL probably a good stock to buy right now with oil relatively cheap.  Linked to Cheney.

Halliburton is the company that won the NO BID oil contract to take control of the Iraqi oil refineries directly after the American invasion.

The oil story in Iraq is complex and still evolving. The Kurds have finally won permission from Baghdad to sell their oil independently. There are several different oil companies working in Iraq.

You understand what that means; no other oil company was allowed to bid on the Iraqi oil refineries that were gonna fund the war and give you smart hard working people more money.

The often repeated political "truth" is that we invaded Iraq for their oil... I don't recall ever getting one drop of that oil.. We have to buy it at market rates like the rest of the world.

You remember why we went to Iraq correct?  Because they were terrorists?
Nope.

Saddam supported terrorism, paying a reward to families of suicide bombers and offering shelter to known terrorists.

Because they were responsible for 911?
Nope there too.

Finally we agree... The Saudi's were responsible for funding 9/11 and Taliban in Afghanistan gave them the safe haven to operate from. 

911  was done by a group of American CIA trained Saudi nationalists who were hiding in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan

Hmm, that's an interesting spin... CIA probably did train and support Mujahedin after Russia invaded Afghanistan  (an enemy of my enemy is my friend ). Osama was probably mujahedin back then. The middle east is a confusing maze of tribal (family) allegiances, religious affiliations, and even some actual nations. While the logic of the map's borders are hard to follow. 

so we invaded Afghanistan and killed over a hundred thousand people.  99.99% of whom had nothing to do with 911.  That's like a bunch of dudes from LA blowing up Trafalgar square and hiding in Saskatchewan so Great Britain invades Montreal and kills over 100,000 men, woman, and children because they had a corrupt government.  And then eventually after invading another country they kill the dudes from LA.

After 9/11 we empowered some warlords and cleaned up alquada in Afghanistan almost over night (while the warlords did let Osama escape to Pakistan).  Of course alqueda was able to hide in Northern Pakistan, and it hard to believe the Pakistan was unaware of Osama's compound there. The big ramp up of fighting in Afghanistan was much later when Obama decided to try a surge-lite, after the apparent success in Iraq (A different nation with different situation. ) As I argued a few years ago the surge in Afghanistan would not be successful (because Afghanistan is not wealthy enough to protect itself after victory). All the Taliban and other enemies of the current Afghan government need to do is wait for us to pull out of there too. A history that repeats itself in afghanistan with regularity. The only glimmer of recognition is the Obama administration talking now about slowing the scheduled pull-out while I find it hard to be too optimistic now. I argued here about the premature complete draw down from Iraq, and the rise of ISIL seems to support my opinion back then.

Do you remember why we invaded Iraq?
Because our president and vice president (and their staff) lied to congress and the American people (and the world) and told them that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.  And therefore he was a threat, I mean a terrorist, I mean he did 911. 

Huh,,, now your just making stuff up... The Judith Miller book supposedly details what was known by whom during that time period.

I love me some Mark Twain.
I'll repeat the question
Do you know who/what Halliburton is?

yes a good oilfield services company politically linked to Cheney... The political heat was so bad the company left the US and is now based somewhere in the middle east.

Birth defects in northern Iraq have risen 200 percent. There are infants being born (if you an call them that) with just legs and and a stomach.  This is because we put depleted uranium rods from US nuclear facilities inside our daisy cutter missiles and bombarded Northen Irag mountains where we know insurgents, Al-Quaida, the Taliban, etc.. are hiding out. It's a win-win situation military wise and economically. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/2013915141726303111.html
I never thought of aljazera as US friendly so maybe those reports are a little "funny".

In Northern Iraq we have actual evidence of Saddam gassing his own population, and he also used poison gas during his war with Iran.

a. the US gets rid of the highly radioactive uranium rods. 

The humorous answer is we have to do something since Harry Reid keeps blocking Yucca mountain, but yes indeed depleted uranium is use in some armor piercing shells used against tanks and hardened installations.

b. no matter what we force the insurgents out either by bombing them and then shoot them if they try to flea or their bodies are so riddled with cancer they'll die in the mountains within months anyways.
Who cares about the innocent woman and children in the area. Casualties of war right?
I betcha the guys who came up with that knew how to work smart and hard.
Scientist/engineers.

You are getting repetitious, and that claim is unsupported.

Halliburton is a multinational corporation who operates oil services.  It's CEO had been the ex-vice president Dick Cheney who “left” the company shortly before his first day in the white house (because it's totally and blatantly illegal) of course he still owned a ton of stock along with George W Bush and their other cronies who too know how to work smart and hard.

That is historical record.

I have no doubt how intelligent you are.

I get along, but mainly I have paid close attention to world events as they were happening. I object to spinners trying to re-write history.

But your lack of empathy is... frightening (albeit not surprising).

Is that more ad hominum...? These discussions go more smoothly without the personal attacks. in fact getting personal is usually evidence that you don't value your own arguments that much. 

You have your soapbox for which you can preach your message of intolerance.

Soapbox? I try to be tolerant, but even I have my limits.

I don't know why though, you have already won.
To those of us who employ, fight for, and work with your “not smart working or hard working” its insulting though.  To them.  And those of us who fight for them.

Like i haven't worked hard and smart all my life.... (so far).

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

I don't really engage anymore in political arguments but this time I....


So your more inclined to believe the politician who gets funding by the oil company (maybe not directly but in some way, via some subsidiary, in some form they do) over the 95% of scientists who actually study climatology?

It really disappoints me when someone slings the same old mud that was slung years ago. What is the old saying? He he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

You mean to imply the billions of pounds in government grants these scientists get in no way influences their views?

You plan to ignore the fact that climate scientists in the late 1970s  said we were heading for another ice age?

You plan to ignore that fact that it was actually warmer in the middle ages than it is now? In London they grew grapes and made lots of wine. That's why there is a street called Vine Street

and so on.

Cheers

Ian.

Cheers

Ian