Iamon lyme: Now that Obama's teleprompter is missing, we'll hear a lot of nonsense!

Iamon lyme: Cain is the man in the debate! You watching?

Iamon lyme: Exactly. Many on the left continue to blame Bush even thought it's Obama that has caused more debt that ALL THE OTHER US PRESIDENTS COMBINED!!!

But it's Bush's fault we're so far in debt. Even though Obama spent the money!

And not Obama wants to spend more money on failed Keynesian economics. There's no end to his stupid!

The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit. Milton Friedman

Iamon lyme: There are some people in the US that think that by taxing the rich, and giving that money to the needy (as a sort of monetary equalization) that such an idea is sustainable in the long run. It's not. And it won't make people equal. Milton Friedman had it right. Only a free enterprize system can help equalize the financial disparity in a country. You take money from the rich and two problems immediately emerge: The rich run out of money and then refuse to work so hard and take so many risks only to have it confiscated by the government to give it to the undeserving who have little ambition in life (except to suck off the hard work of others).

Limbaugh is now officially and idiot.

Bernice: That would be nice. Hunger is a huge problem in the world and it doesn't have to be that way.

Übergeek 바둑이: So are you disputing the entire info found in the wiileaks?

Not finding a smoking gun doesn't mean there wasn't one. We know there were WMDs. Intelligence suggested that Saddam was trying to get more. But I do suspect that there was a measured effort to find reason to topple Saddam. But it's just a guess on my part. That Saddam was a bad leader is not debatable. He was a killer. But the US is mistaken if they think they can create a Western democracy in an Eastern country. Especially a Muslim country. A huge mistake. All this while Obama has just sent in 100 troops to a South African country to help with the rebellion going on there. Not much has changed in Washington DC. Obama still has in place many of the Bush policies pertaining to the war.


When someone commits suicide, it may say things one way or another. Only the one who took his/her life knows the deeper reason. That man's death COULD say something about the truth but just the fact that he took his own life doesn't REALLY say anything. People take their lives for many reasons. We can only guess why.

Iraq did have WMDs. Did they still have some at the time of the "invasion?" I doubt it. But no one knew with absolute certainty until AFTER.

"What nobody ever talks about is chemical weapons used by the USA in Iraq. The USA used massive amounts of white phosphorus in Fallujah:"

That is meaningless if Saddam had WMD's of his own. What the US has/had isn't the issue.

War sucks. And since the intent in war is to kill, white phosphorus is handy. But likely innocents are being killed this way and in those cases, it should be banned.

Iamon lyme: and how about this:


US did find Iraq WMD
By DON KAPLAN

Last Updated: 8:57 AM, October 25, 2010

Posted: 12:44 AM, October 25, 2010


More Print There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

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.

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) ;)

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!

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

(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.

(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.

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

(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

Iamon lyme:

(V): I think you're trolling.

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.

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

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: 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: 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: his consensus figures are wayyyyyyy off.

And it's only A SOUND BITE

(V): Not true. Patiently false.

(V): You only had sound bites. And I've debunked your 97. Get over it and chalk up another loss to me.

(V): (V) (hide)show this user posts | show thread | linkSubject: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject?
Artful Dodger: can you prove the 97% of climatologists who say you are wrong wrong then?
Reply (box)


Jules, as I've been demonstrating: it's NOT 97%.

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.”

(V): that doesn't prove anthropogenic global warming

(V): The point in play is your claim that 97% of scientists support anthropogenic global warming. I've soundly refuted your claim. Like I said, you lose.

(V): Your 97%. Defend why it's significant.

(V): You said 97% and I've PROVEN that THAT is bogus. End of story. You've been debunked. again.......

Vikings: I know, but I'm desperate.