(V): lol.. Yes, there are many possible explanations, but only if you ignore the facts and let your imagination run wild.

(V): We were first invited to go after Saddam by other Arab nations. It was the only time they have ever directly asked for our help. Do you really not understand what was happening over there?

(V): The answer can be found in your statement that by the time Bush invaded Iraq we didn't find WMDs. We found evidence that there had been those devices and materials used to make them, but you are ignoring the fact (or have forgotten) that several months passed while Bush was trying to get the UN to sanction the invasion, giving Saddam ample time to get rid of them. We later stopped a ship containing those materials coming from another country after they believed we might strike there next. Can you guess (or do you know) what contry that was?

Artful Dodger:

> If Jesus was in charge, we wouldn't be in this mess!

I suppose Jesus would do certain things differently. He would probably support free, universal health care for the poor since his ministry dealt so much with the suffering of the poor. He would probably support feeding the poor too, and to do so he might have had to use state funds. Jesus would be on the side of the poor all the way. He would care for the working man (his father was a carpenter), and he would pardon criminals who repented of their transgressions. He would probably get rid of all the weapons, including the nuclear arsenal. He would leave all theatres of war operations and simply refuse to go to war. It is difficult to say. It all depends on how one interprets the New Testament.

> I don't want to vilify the rich generally. I know a few millionaires. One, uses his money to help the poor build churches in South America along with roads and wells.

I don't generalize abou the rich. Some of them do great things with their money. Other are just plain greedy. The rich live in a state of contradiction. They want to make a lot of money, and to do that you have to be aggressive. At the same time they want to be good, or at least be seen as good.

The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He founded the Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). He turned that company into the biggest monopoly in the world. To do that he engaged in industrial espionage, price wars, heavy-handed marketing tactics, courtroom evasions and shennanigans, bribery, supporting dictators abroad, using thugs to beat up workers who went on strike, influencing and corrupting elected representatives, etc. At the same time he was engaged in huge charity projects and gave away over 1 billion dollars to charity (in today's money that would be about 50 billion).

So there is a deep contradiction between the brutality of his business tactics, and the generosity of his charitable donations. He made thousands of people poor and dispossesed, and helped thousands of poor people at the same time.

Some of the businessmen that influence Washington today probably have the same contradictions. They will use their money to influence representatives, they will use brutal business tactics both at home and abroad, and then they will donate a lot of money to charity. Sometimes those donations are given out of altruistic principles, sometimes the donations become tax deductions. In the meantime representatives are easily swayed by money and a system that undermines the democratic process.

Bernice: Jesus broke the tradition of excluding women in the affairs of men. He was a bit of a radical when it comes to tradition.

Artful Dodger: "We've seen these things before in the history of the world. Climate changes. Normal cycyle. Nothing new. Man made? That's where the junk science comes in."

I feel with you

Disastrous pollutions, we should agree on that, are man made. It appears that nothing on this world could mess us up, although, certain toys are not in trustable hands. Just like soups and Bernice. Who could stand the poison.

Artful Dodger: OI!!!!....cut that out....she was in the kitchen (where men like to keep us, barefoot and....)and just had a taste....but because men are wooses (sp) she got the blame...

OK OK ....Jesus first I guess, but then wasn't Jesus a woman?

Bernice: Jesus first, a woman second. And don't forget it's a woman's fault were in this mess in the first place (she ate the apple) ;)

Artful Dodger: don't you have that bit wrong???

what you mean is...If a woman was in charge we wouldn't be in this mess....

Please get YOUR facts straight.

Übergeek 바둑이: If Jesus was in charge, we wouldn't be in this mess!

I don't want to vilify the rich generally. I know a few millionaires. One, uses his money to help the poor build churches in South America along with roads and wells.

(V): Of course I do. YOu know that. I'm far more educated than you are. And like you, I can navigate google too!

Artful Dodger:

> However, it's the climate in Washington that's really to blame. I don't think all politicians enter Washington that way. But they learn to play the game and learn what it takes to get things done. Along the way, they get taken advantage of and eventually they look and sound like everyone else in DC.

This is a serious problem is most western democracies, not just the USA. The rich and powerful use their money to influence policy makers. In most countries the winners of elections are those who advertise and campaign aggressively. It costs money to mount aggressive campaigns. Advertising is aimed at building up your own image while discrediting your opponents. Character assasination and underhanded tactices go hand in hand.

The rich and powerful know this, so they strategically donate money to candidates that will further carefully selected political and economic interests. Money becomes a tool to influence law makers.

Candiadtes have learned that a mixture of big advertising dollars and populism sells well at election time. Barrack Obama is a great example, as was Ronald Regan.

The situation is such that the candidates generally elected are those who spend the most on election campaigns. Campaign expenditures have risen election after election, to the point that now candidates are spending over a billion dollars during a presidential campaign.

Small political parties with new ideas are shut out completely. The playing field is not level and that means that the two dominant political parties completely choke small parties. Then both parties often represent competing political and economic interests and that leads to a political stalemate. The two parties are virtually unable to function without constantly trumping each other at every turn.

We have heard of Wshington being "dysfunctional". I think the main culprit is special interests and campaign donors that expect the money they donated to buy power and influence. Candidates that take no money have virtually no chance of being elected, and therefore cannot come in and bring change and new ideas.

The public craves change and renewal. Since the dominant parties are unable to deliver, people look for whoever can offer something new. Barrack Obama sold himself as a man who could bring change. I think that at least to some extent he was sincere in his desire, but failed on account of the much bigger and much more powerful machinery of money and hypocrysy.

The Tea Party is offering more transparency, a return to some traditional values of the past, and a more honest, open government. The big question is whether they can deliver. Unfortunately their front runners are people who grew up politically in the same system. Only time can tell whether they can break away from the "old boys club" mentaility and the pervasive presence of special interests and corporate meddling.

yes.... but do you?

(V): Facts? Like you just did? Did you even know what speculation mean???

Artful Dodger: Yes.. just like you showed me years ago you do.

"If you really are interested in the various explanations for no WMDs and the possible why for that"

I have already looked, and it seems Bush went by gut feeling. Something you keep saying is not good enough. Maybe if he'd gone on facts... ... ..

But it seems he wanted to make up for his daddies failure on Iraq.

(V): If you really are interested in the various explanations for no WMDs and the possible why for that, try http://www.google.com

I'm sure you can navigate your way around there.

Übergeek 바둑이: I think that you are right. It cuts across party lines. I do believe you see more of it on the liberal side but it's not exclusively theirs. However, it's the climate in Washington that's really to blame. I don't think all politicians enter Washington that way. But they learn to play the game and learn what it takes to get things done. Along the way, they get taken advantage of and eventually they look and sound like everyone else in DC. I suppose there has to be some level of the sort of thing we're discussing (in order to get things done in DC) but often the lines of decency not only get blurred, they are blantenly crossed. A thousand excuses follow.

Übergeek 바둑이: Well, without big money and support from corporations or individuals nowadays in the US there is no effective election campaign.

I think maybe the US needs to take on a UK system regarding TV advertising. In the UK such advertising is limited but free. Even during a general election parties get just a few slots per week.

Thank God for that imho ;)

Artful Dodger:

> Obama is NO DIFFERENT than the rest. Even though he campaigned on being a cut above the rest. He's cut from the same cloth.

The question is: Is there anyone who is not like the rest?

Is there any Democrat or Republican who has not taken money from corporations or wealthy businessmen?

I think at this point the only political party not takiing money from corporations is probably the Communist Party USA!

Well, many Americans want to believe that somehow Democrats and Republicans are really different, but they do have two things in common: greed and hypocrysy.

Artful Dodger: I would like to hear. It'd be interesting to see what the right neo cons invented to back up Bush.

But I'll guess it's a big zero.

(V): You have no interest in my theories. You're just trolling again. WMDs is OLD NEWS and everything that can be known is known about it. So you won't surprise me with anything new here. You need to find a current issue with which to disagree.

Artful Dodger: Please explain. I'd like to hear your theories....

But.. if you know everything, why are there so "many possible explanations"?

(V): I know everything about it. But you keep harping that there were no WMDs found. There are many possible explanations for this.

Artful Dodger: Yes... he did. The ones that he used on Iran supplied via the US. But at the time of the Invasion of Iraq by Bush he did not, otherwise We'd have found them.

Iraq was just an easy victory... or was supposed to be.

Are you that clueless you don't know that?

(V): News flash for ya Sherlock. Saddam DID have WMDs. Everybody knew it. He'd used them. So it wan't brain science to conclude he might still have stockpiles. Former presidents, democrats and republicans, liberal news commentators, ALL OF THEM are on record saying Saddam was a destructive force and had access to WMDs. There, now you're no longer clueless on that subject.

And as for liking Obama at one time, look at his election victory numbers and his current polls. His poll numbers indicate that much of his support has been lost. So like me, they liked him in the beginning but after seeing his true colors, they changed their minds. Open minded people do that ya know.

Iamon lyme: I could just use my neighbors hot spot. lol But I think I'd get caught. I may get an iphone and then I'd have internet everywhere. There goes my life! lol

Artful Dodger: Just looking back at how peoples views change Dan.

Like when you said Saddam had WMD's.... Like when you said you like Obama..

Politics (Artful Dodger, 2009-01-25 05:37:17)

Artful Dodger: I'll have to wait until tomorrow to hear the link. I didn't think of taking earphones with me to my favorite wi-fi spot this evening, and it's difficult to hear what my computer is trying to say. And when I say favorite spot, I mean it's only a 15 minute walk from my home. I'll probably get internet service at my home before the new year, but until then I'll be slumming it.

You wealthy fat cats (that's code for 'employed') have it easy, but I need to venture outside and walk to get my online fix... I have to work before I can get my pop corn brain cells popping.

Iamon lyme:

Vikings: That's right, I had forgotten that. They are already in the process of distancing themselves from their own global warming prediction. Sometime down the road, after making other changes to the rhetoric, they can then claim that global warming was never an issue.

I know how stupid that sounds, because who would believe that global warming proponents never warned us about global warming? A few years ago I was involved in a debate over another subject, where someone claimed opposition to the big bang theory had nothing to do with religion. I was alive at the time when some scientists opposed the big bang theory because of how it resembled the genesis account of creation. If you compared both the steady state universe and big bang theories to the genesis account, it's a no brainer which one comes closest to resembling the biblical acccount. But here it is only a few years ago someone is telling me that never happened. It makes me wonder, how many other things never happened that I've personally witnessed?

Artful Dodger: I usually don't click on links, as I am afraid of getting a virus which might give me a runny nose that drips onto my keyboard and shorts it out, but on the off chance that I might not be you I should probably take a look at it. If I've already seen it because I posted it then I'll have to re-evaluate the facts surrounding the question of my being a separately existing sentient being..

(V): I think you're trolling.

Like Sarah Palin and the reported $250,000 the Republican party spent on her dresses during the 2008 campaign to make her look good.

But shhhhhhhhh it's not the point.

I wonder if Sarah Palin think everyone who's not Christian (or as some Christians say, specifically not a born again Christian) is going to Hell??

What do you think Dan?

Bernice: It's amazing how much money is spent on getting someone elected to office. What a waste.

Übergeek 바둑이: Bush isn't the point. The point is that the darling of the left took money from the big corporations just like any other politician. Obama is NO DIFFERENT than the rest. Even though he campaigned on being a cut above the rest. He's cut from the same cloth.

Btw... my point of the radiation of Nuclear above ground tests...

The steel they need to make Geiger counters has to be from pre 1945 smelted steel. Basically, they scavenge off sunken WWII vessels.

Since 1945, the smelting process is using air contaminated with radioactive particles which makes the Geiger counter useless.

Also it seems to forgotten about how leukaemia cases in children seemed to rise for no reason whatsoever.... or was it that Strontium-90 was being absorbed by kids bones....

..."The study's final results showed that children born in 1963 had levels of 90Sr in their deciduous teeth that was 50 times higher than that found in children born in 1950, before the advent of large-scale atomic testing. An article with the study's initial findings was circulated to U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1961, and helped convince him to sign the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the United Kingdom and Soviet Union, ending the above-ground nuclear weapons testing that placed the greatest amounts of nuclear fallout into the atmosphere."

IE... we poisoned our own children in order to look like big kids with big bombs.

Bernice: Like with WMD's.... but they were wrong about that. Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam... but they were wrong about that.

That everyone who was not a Christian (and only the born again type) was bound for hell... Someone here was so sure about that.

Even Glenn Beck was bound to hell by the views of this person and his worships a false prophet..

... but now they worship Glenn Beck.

How times change LMAO

Iamon lyme: Yep.. a few papers took hold of a few papers and said it proved that cooling was starting... despite that few papers being 7 and 44 saying global warming was a good probability.

Blame the press!! lol

Artful Dodger: that is an awful lot of money....could have helped a lot of people pay off their mortgage:(

Artful Dodger:

And how much did George W. Bush get?

Or are Republicans immune to Wall Street Money?

FACT: PRESIDENT OBAMA RECIEVED $165 MILLION DOLLARS FOR HIS 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FROM WALL STREET EXECS

Iamon lyme: since every one is catching on to their hypocrisy, they are now referring to it as man made global CHANGE.

97% of those polled believe that it will cool in the northern hemisphere over the next few months while oddly enough, 97% of those polled believe the southern hemisphere will warm over the next few months

Bernice: I totally agree. I don't believe I "couldn't be wrong" as I'm not all knowing. There is an argument on the other side in support of man made climate change. The problem is, I am more convinced by the counter arguments against MMGW than those made for the idea.

On TV personality suggested that if "deniers" are wrong, we're all going to suffer environmentally. But if the "warmists" are wrong, the worst is we'd have a cleaner earth.

But he's oh so wrong. The law of unintended consequences is hugely at play here. Food prices are up, but for many, we can afford the jump. But in some cultures, it means little food and starvation. Millions would die of the "Alarmists" had their way. So much is at stake. Truth matters.

Also, those ringing the bell the loudest (FOR global warming) stand to make tons of money from it. Hardly a credible source from which to form an opinion. Most scientists in favor of warming would lose funds if warming was debunked totally. So they are motivated by the $$ and NOT the science.

Iamon lyme: .....well ONE person will ALWAYS be right :)

Iamon lyme: Be sure to check out the video I posted (I know some people believe you are me, in which case, you're already seen it...but...) just in case you're not me, Lord Monckton makes a strong case against the hysteria. In another video, he levels a scientist's claims (on live tv no less).

Vikings: Heck, I can remember when global cooling was supposed to usher in the next ice age.

They could at least wait until all of us old farts have died off before they start in predicting the opposite of what they had been predicting. The excuse is usually something like "Well, we know more now than we did then." I guess that means no one can be wrong about it now.. at least not until the next consensus is taken.

Vikings: I remember that! It all points to "proof" for their position.

Iamon lyme: There are two issues that the liberals love to cling to. Oddly enough, the two issues have something in common, even though they are very strange bedfellows indeed.

One is climate change and the other is racism.

Al Gore suggested that denying anthropogenic climate change is settled science is like denying that blacks are equal to whites. Somehow Gore sees both denials as a moral equivalent.

Another interesting parallel for liberals is the logic they use on both climate change discussions and racism charges.

On climate change: If it's getting hotter, that's due to climate change (caused by man).
If it's getting colder, that's also caused by man.
If it stays the same, yeah, you guessed it. Never mind that those are the only three climate choices.

On racism: IF you're a conservative and if you don't have any black friends, it's because you're a racist. If you do have a black friend, it's because you are a racist and only using that black person as an excuse to hide your racism.

If you oppose Obama, it's because you're a racist.
If you like Cain, it's because you're a racist trying to hide your racism.

No matter the facts presented to liberals regarding climate change or racism, they spin it against you ONLY if you are a conservative.

If you're a liberal, there's a 97% chance you can't think for yourself. The other 3% are moderates.

Iamon lyme: of course, don't you remember last year when they said that global cooling proves global warming

Artful Dodger: even if his figures were spot on it wouldn't make a difference. Many climatologists caved under political pressure to go along with this, some for financial gain and others out of fear for their jobs. Where I live the state climatogist came under fire for challenging the global warming position. No word after that whether he was able to keep his prestigious job or not.. odds are he has been quietly replaced or effectively muzzled. I saw the governor in a news cast expressing his displeasure over a scientist (his scientist) not going along with the program.

For whatever reasons (V) has jumped on the politically correct version of global climate science. What I've noticed about various liberal causes over the years is they can change at any time, and even promote the opposite of what they used to promote.