Prof
Nice try…try again. That’s far from the only logical conclusion. It’s an opinion. Clearly yours is different. If you have good intel, a good reasona nd the capability then you go. The opinion of your psuedo allies not withstanding.
Future Dave,
No it’s not Condi. Are you Al Franken? You seem to mimic a lot of what he and the rest of the ABB’ers have to say. Got anything original?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Did you forget what this thread is about? That’s something new. It just all involves the same bullshit so of course it comes back full circle again. You just hate that it was a lie and that they are FINALLY admitting it. Hell, there is even talk about how our intelligence agencies were “bullied” into skewing the information towards a desired outcome. Gasp, who would have thunk it?! Face it, as a society, we are being “scared” into giving more and more power to big government and big companies. I just find it foolish that so many seem to not see what the goal is.
The only thing circular here is the arguments of the left. I especially like the way you guys conveniently leave out the fact that the Big Liar is saying the same thing that your guys said when Clinton was in office.
It’s amazing to me how short of memory you are when the other guy is sittting in the Oval Office.
[/quote]
Gee Rainjack, I don’t remember Clinton saying imminent threat? mobile bio-labs? yellow-cake? ties to al-queda? mushroom cloud? There is no doubt? These are facts? Could you be more wrong Rainjack? The difference in believing Iraq had WMD, and convincing american voters that Iraq does have wmd, does have ties to al-queda despite your intelligence agencies telling you don’t say this in your state of the union, and don’t say this to the u.n. and then telling american voters something has to be done about it right now!—the difference is huge Rainjack. Now I know you’ll refuse to be intellectually honest about this, but you did read the commision’s report on intel right?
Between Jan 2000 to sept 2001, we got 100 reports from curveball’s handlers about biological weapons, and those reports were incorporated into the national intelligence estimate. Previously under Clinton the NIE contained this caveat:
“[w]e cannot confirm whether Iraq has produced . . . biological agents.”
The Commission then says, “By 2001, however, the assessments (NIE’s) became more assertive.” So under Bush you see the statements became more and more definitive all based on the SAME lies told by Curveball regarding made-up mobile bio-labs, eventually reaching the state of definitive fact, here’s a painful example of silliness:
“We know Iraq has developed a redundant capability to produce biological warfare agents using mobile production units.” George Tenet (hell he got an award for this kind of crap)
Rainjack—you’ve got to be careful about repeating everything right-wing radio tells you—tip: They lie to you because they have no respect for your intelligence.
Let’s review:
Clinton: “believed Iraq had WMD”, no effort to trick voters into pre-emptive invasion, continued containment.(which as you know…worked—no wmd since gulf war) cost to americans, very, very low.
Bush: “Iraq has WMD, Has Al-queda, these are facts–despite some intelligence agencies telling me don’t say this” invades Iraq. Iraq has no wmd. cost to americans-- huge, ongoing, also lied to americans about costs, said 1.5 billion–we probably spend that every week.
What good is memory Rainjack, when your side can just make stuff up.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Prof
Nice try…try again. That’s far from the only logical conclusion.[/quote]
Then what is the other? That if Clinton had done the same that all republicans would have called him a visionary? You believe that the Republican party itself is simply so entranced with bringing our version of democracy to Iraq that no matter what, not even the tragedy of 9/11, nothing would have affected some mass desire to go into Iraq at the exact moment we did? Do you honestly believe that public support for the “war” along with the breif increase in military recruits had nothing to do with 9/11 and that this has been about democracy for Iraq the entire time?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Prof
Nice try…try again. That’s far from the only logical conclusion. It’s an opinion. Clearly yours is different. If you have good intel, a good reasona nd the capability then you go. The opinion of your psuedo allies not withstanding.
Future Dave,
No it’s not Condi. Are you Al Franken? You seem to mimic a lot of what he and the rest of the ABB’ers have to say. Got anything original?
[/quote]
Hedo, you just got schooled—plus that’s not Franken it’s the 9/11 commission. How many reports did the admin get before 9/11 plus the PDB of Aug. 6 leading to how many meetings on terror (hint- ZERO)
you said: “You go on the info you have”
Your guy sat on his hands.
I think the following story epitomizes why the reality based community gets so fed up with the “terror” label being slapped on everything to justify screwing everybody and taking away more of our rights.
How much are people willing to ignore? As ProfX stated earlier, this isn’t a political party issue anymore, this is about saving America as we knew it. As I posted earlier, in all likelyhood our own government got busted as the “anthrax” perpetrators after 9/11 and that story quickly died. Who might those terrorists be that could infiltrate the pharmacuetical companies I wonder?
Terror, terror, terror… how do dictatorships control the masses - FEAR. Your neighbors’ probably a terrorist – keeps to himself a lot – always working on something in the garage… hmmm…better call the authorities.
Fact: CONVICTIONS in connection to 9/11 = ZERO
The Ricin Ring That Never Was
Yesterday’s trial collapse has exposed the deception behind attempts to link al-Qaida to a ‘poison attack’ on London
Duncan Campbell
Thursday April 14, 2005
The Guardian
Colin Powell does not need more humiliation over the manifold errors in his February 2003 presentation to the UN. But yesterday a London jury brought down another section of the case he made for war - that Iraq and Osama bin Laden were supporting and directing terrorist poison cells throughout Europe, including a London ricin ring.
Yesterday’s verdicts on five defendants and the dropping of charges against four others make clear there was no ricin ring. Nor did the “ricin ring” make or have ricin. Not that the government shared that news with us. Until today, the public record for the past three fear-inducing years has been that ricin was found in the Wood Green flat occupied by some of yesterday’s acquitted defendants. It wasn’t.
The third plank of the al-Qaida-Iraq poison theory was the link between what Powell labelled the “UK poison cell” and training camps in Afghanistan. The evidence the government wanted to use to connect the defendants to Afghanistan and al-Qaida was never put to the jury. That was because last autumn a trial within a trial was secretly taking place. This was a private contest between a group of scientists from the Porton Down military research centre and myself. The issue was: where had the information on poisons and chemicals come from?
The information - five pages in Arabic, containing amateur instructions for making ricin, cyanide and botulinum, and a list of chemicals used in explosives - was at the heart of the case. The notes had been made by Kamel Bourgass, the sole convicted defendant. His co-defendants believed that he had copied the information from the internet. The prosecution claimed it had come from Afghanistan.
I was asked to look for the original source on the internet. This meant exploring Islamist websites that publish Bin Laden and his sympathisers, and plumbing the most prolific source of information on how to do harm: the writings of the American survivalist right and the gun lobby.
The experience of being an expert witness on these issues has made me feel a great deal safer on the streets of London. These were the internal documents of the supposed al-Qaida cell planning the “big one” in Britain. But the recipes were untested and unoriginal, borrowed from US sources. Moreover, ricin is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is a poison which has only ever been used for one-on-one killings and attempted killings.
If this was the measure of the destructive wrath that Bin Laden’s followers were about to wreak on London, it was impotent. Yet it was the discovery of a copy of Bourgass’s notes in Thetford in 2002 that inspired the wave of horror stories and government announcements and preparations for poison gas attacks.
It is true that when the team from Porton Down entered the Wood Green flat in January 2003, their field equipment registered the presence of ricin. But these were high sensitivity field detectors, for use where a false negative result could be fatal. A few days later in the lab, Dr Martin Pearce, head of the Biological Weapons Identification Group, found that there was no ricin. But when this result was passed to London, the message reportedly said the opposite.
The planned government case on links to Afghanistan was based only on papers that a freelance journalist working for the Times had scooped up after the US invasion of Kabul. Some were in Arabic, some in Russian. They were far more detailed than Bourgass’s notes. Nevertheless, claimed Porton Down chemistry chief Dr Chris Timperley, they showed a “common origin and progression” in the methods, thus linking the London group of north Africans to Afghanistan and Bin Laden.
The weakness of Timperley’s case was that neither he nor the intelligence services had examined any other documents that could have been the source. We were told Porton Down and its intelligence advisers had never previously heard of the “Mujahideen Poisons Handbook, containing recipes for ricin and much more”. The document, written by veterans of the 1980s Afghan war, has been on the net since 1998.
All the information roads led west, not to Kabul but to California and the US midwest. The recipes for ricin now seen on the internet were invented 20 years ago by survivalist Kurt Saxon. He advertises videos and books on the internet. Before the ricin ring trial started, I phoned him in Arizona. For $110, he sent me a fistful of CDs and videos on how to make bombs, missiles, booby traps - and ricin. We handed a copy of the ricin video to the police.
When, in October, I showed that the chemical lists found in London were an exact copy of pages on an internet site in Palo Alto, California, the prosecution gave up on the Kabul and al-Qaida link claims. But it seems this information was not shared with the then home secretary, David Blunkett, who was still whipping up fear two weeks later. “Al-Qaida and the international network is seen to be, and will be demonstrated through the courts over months to come, actually on our doorstep and threatening our lives,” he said on November 14.
The most ironic twist was an attempt to introduce an “al-Qaida manual” into the case. The manual - called the Manual of the Afghan Jihad - had been found on a raid in Manchester in 2000. It was given to the FBI to produce in the 2001 New York trial for the first attack on the World Trade Centre. But it wasn’t an al-Qaida manual. The name was invented by the US department of justice in 2001, and the contents were rushed on to the net to aid a presentation to the Senate by the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, supporting the US Patriot Act.
To show that the Jihad manual was written in the 1980s and the period of the US-supported war against the Soviet occupation was easy. The ricin recipe it contained was a direct translation from a 1988 US book called the Poisoner’s Handbook, by Maxwell Hutchkinson.
We have all been victims of this mass deception. I do not doubt that Bourgass would have contemplated causing harm if he was competent to do so. But he was an Islamist yobbo on his own, not an Al Qaida-trained superterrorist. An Asbo might be appropriate.
Duncan Campbell is an investigative writer and a scientific expert witness on computers and telecommunications. He is author of War Plan UK and is not the Guardian journalist of the same name.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1459096,00.html
Al-Qaeda: a conspiracy of dunces?
The real story of the ‘ricin plot’ is that Britain’s would-be terrorists are a bunch of losers.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA9A0.htm
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Prof
Nice try…try again. That’s far from the only logical conclusion. It’s an opinion. Clearly yours is different. If you have good intel, a good reasona nd the capability then you go. The opinion of your psuedo allies not withstanding.
Future Dave,
No it’s not Condi. Are you Al Franken? You seem to mimic a lot of what he and the rest of the ABB’ers have to say. Got anything original?
Hedo, you just got schooled—plus that’s not Franken it’s the 9/11 commission. How many reports did the admin get before 9/11 plus the PDB of Aug. 6 leading to how many meetings on terror (hint- ZERO)
you said: “You go on the info you have”
Your guy sat on his hands.[/quote]
100, In your dreams. Grow up dude. You and your puny kind would not have supported squat if it hadn’t of been for 9/11. That would require you to face facts and your own shortcomings. We both know that will never happen don’t we.
Bet you a couple of thousand terrorists don’t think he sat on his hands. That’s reality not rhetoric. That’s a schooling son.
Prof
Conservatives support the country in time of war. They don’t wish for bad things to happen so they can be proven correct. At least the ones I know.
I don’t know if that describes you or not but let’s face you guys bitch a lot about everything. At some point even a blind squirel finds a nut…unless it’s a lefty I guess.
Conspiracy is not around every corner. Why don’t you two try and have a positive thought now and then. Perhaps work for a candidate that has an idea instead of a complaint. Yes that is the difficult way to do things but it could happen.
Have a goddamn original idea every once in a while.
Futuredave - Nothing better than regurgitating shit and viewing it with 20/20 hindsight? You keep massaging the same old stories, and ejaculating the same old tired arguments that are evidently not that big a deal - unless you’re fomd of the flavor. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
ProfX - It’s nice to have you back. I haven’t heard the “Bush lied/people died” or the equally old and played out “they’re taking away my rights and coming for me in black helicopters” mantra in a while.
100M - you have to employed by either Soros, or MoveOn.org. Wait - aren’t they the same thing?
Please -your selective memory, and 20/20 hindsight makes this discussion pointless. You hate Bush. But you are in the minority. The minority you are in wioll be even smaller in 2 years. Lose like a winner - because the broken record you guys fashion to be reason only entertains yourselves.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Conspiracy is not around every corner. Why don’t you two try and have a positive thought now and then. Perhaps work for a candidate that has an idea instead of a complaint. Yes that is the difficult way to do things but it could happen.
[/quote]
This isn’t about some made up conspiracy. I will ask you the same question I asked Rainjack…did you even read the post that started this thread? That isn’t some hidden conspiracy theory, it is what happens when those in power try to use one gimmick (in this case terror) to take away rights and give even more power to large companies. It is right there, it isn’t hidden. It isn’t something made up and only someone so determined to ignore anything that might cast a shadow on their political party would try to ignore it as if someone simply farted.
Regardless of your political party, are you actually saying you don’t see anything at all shady about this? Exactly how far will the “witch hunt for terror” extend its fingers into every facet of American life before a few of you extremely self righteous conservatives notice that everything isn’t roses?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This isn’t about some made up conspiracy. I will ask you the same question I asked Rainjack…did you even read the post that started this thread? That isn’t some hidden conspiracy theory, it is what happens when those in power try to use one gimmick (in this case terror) to take away rights and give even more power to large companies. It is right there, it isn’t hidden. It isn’t something made up and only someone so determined to ignore anything that might cast a shadow on their political party would try to ignore it as if someone simply farted.
Regardless of your political party, are you actually saying you don’t see anything at all shady about this? Exactly how far will the “witch hunt for terror” extend its fingers into every facet of American life before a few of you extremely self righteous conservatives notice that everything isn’t roses?
[/quote]
I read the post, Prof. And yuou guys aren’t intellectually honest enough to admit that what I said is even plausible. You don’t want to because then you might see something besides the mirage of eroded rights.
Canada is a friend to our enemies. They’ve admitted as much. I’m not against buying meds from Canada. I’ve recommended it to some of my clients, in fact. I have as much a problem with drug companies as you do.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I read the post, Prof. And yuou guys aren’t intellectually honest enough to admit that what I said is even plausible. You don’t want to because then you might see something besides the mirage of eroded rights.
Canada is a friend to our enemies. They’ve admitted as much. I’m not against buying meds from Canada. I’ve recommended it to some of my clients, in fact. I have as much a problem with drug companies as you do.
[/quote]
Yet I can only assume you believe that terrorists are about to set up a bunch of pharmacies in order to take out the sick in this country? The goal is massive genocide of all those with chronic diseases? They have blueprints for how to take out every American man, woman and child with high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer? Gawd, this is stupid.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Futuredave - Nothing better than regurgitating shit and viewing it with 20/20 hindsight? You keep massaging the same old stories, and ejaculating the same old tired arguments that are evidently not that big a deal - unless you’re fomd of the flavor. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. [/quote]
I have argued that:
A. This administration has no credibility based on the bad intelligence which was submitted as facts prior to the invasion of Iraq.
And…
B. That they obviously do not have a history of taking their intelligence seriously since the PDBs on Bin Laden were ignored, this despite Richard Clark’s repeated warnings.
And your answer to me was that these things are “evidently not that big a deal” and to bring them up is the equivalent of eating my own cum. Or shit. Or vomit. I’m not sure, since you mix your metaphors.
Uhhh, okay. Good response.
We’ve killed 100,000 people based on bad information and it’s not that big a deal? WTF is a big deal then?
And fyi, I’m not an ABBer, since I took great pains to make a decision about whether to support the war and then decided to actually SUPPORT IT based on Colin Powell’s testimony. I feel as American’s it’s our job to look at what are presented as facts and then support or not support a particular isssue. I chose to support it based on the “evidence” that was presented. Which, if you will read the testimony, was presented as “not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts…”
But they were assertions. And when you say something is not an assersion but it is, then you are lying.
In short, I supported a war based on lies. That bothers me as an American.
It’s one thing when the people of the world (France and those fucking no good trouble making Canadians) don’t believe our government… it’s another thing when many millions of Americans no longer trust what comes out of the mouths of the leaders of this country. That is a very serious problem, imho.
Reminds me of a bit on the Simpsons when Lisa says, “Bart, didn’t you ever read, ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf?’”
Bart: “Yeah, I read it. Cried wolf. Had a few laughs. I never finished it though.”
And no, hedo, I don’t listen to Al Franken. Or Rush or anybody else. I actually read the news and make an opinion based on what I see there. I don’t tow any party line.
And I think Clinton and the liberals have failed us in many very serious ways also. I think John Edwards is a joke. I think Hillary would lose to that “Hey, Vern” guy. I believe we as Americans need to take a good look at where both parties are leading us.
And I do think it matters.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
Conspiracy is not around every corner. Why don’t you two try and have a positive thought now and then. Perhaps work for a candidate that has an idea instead of a complaint. Yes that is the difficult way to do things but it could happen.
This isn’t about some made up conspiracy. I will ask you the same question I asked Rainjack…did you even read the post that started this thread? That isn’t some hidden conspiracy theory, it is what happens when those in power try to use one gimmick (in this case terror) to take away rights and give even more power to large companies. It is right there, it isn’t hidden. It isn’t something made up and only someone so determined to ignore anything that might cast a shadow on their political party would try to ignore it as if someone simply farted.
Regardless of your political party, are you actually saying you don’t see anything at all shady about this? Exactly how far will the “witch hunt for terror” extend its fingers into every facet of American life before a few of you extremely self righteous conservatives notice that everything isn’t roses?
[/quote]
Prof X
No I don’t. My feeling is that if the govt. is looking into something there is probably something to it. I don’t know what it is but I don’t think they look at things like terrorism to waste time. I am sure my perspective is different.
How far will it go? I don’t know I guess until the problem goes away. I deal with searches at the airport for my own protection. I don’t like it but I deal with it. I consider it a civic responsibility.
I think that is what has been lost by the left. The concept of civil responsibility. Bitching endlessly in your own self-interest is not being responsible. It’s just bitching to hear yourself talk. Cooperating to get a job done is civic responsibility.
Don’t worry there are enough of us left to get the job done…as always.
So no. I don’t see that it is “something shady” between govt. and business.
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Prof
Nice try…try again. That’s far from the only logical conclusion. It’s an opinion. Clearly yours is different. If you have good intel, a good reasona nd the capability then you go. The opinion of your psuedo allies not withstanding.
Future Dave,
No it’s not Condi. Are you Al Franken? You seem to mimic a lot of what he and the rest of the ABB’ers have to say. Got anything original?
Hedo, you just got schooled—plus that’s not Franken it’s the 9/11 commission. How many reports did the admin get before 9/11 plus the PDB of Aug. 6 leading to how many meetings on terror (hint- ZERO)
you said: “You go on the info you have”
Your guy sat on his hands.
100, In your dreams. Grow up dude. You and your puny kind would not have supported squat if it hadn’t of been for 9/11. That would require you to face facts and your own shortcomings. We both know that will never happen don’t we.
Bet you a couple of thousand terrorists don’t think he sat on his hands. That’s reality not rhetoric. That’s a schooling son.
Prof
Conservatives support the country in time of war. They don’t wish for bad things to happen so they can be proven correct. At least the ones I know.
I don’t know if that describes you or not but let’s face you guys bitch a lot about everything. At some point even a blind squirel finds a nut…unless it’s a lefty I guess.
Conspiracy is not around every corner. Why don’t you two try and have a positive thought now and then. Perhaps work for a candidate that has an idea instead of a complaint. Yes that is the difficult way to do things but it could happen.
[/quote]
You naturally ignored how many warnings (Intel) vs. how many meetings(action). I don’t blame you, because Bush was clueless/ or worse uninterested on the war on terror pre 9/11.
Bet you a couple of thousand terrorists don’t think he sat on his hands.
Uhmm… The ones that matter (Osama bin Laden) are still taunting Bush for sitting on his hands, and I’m sure the ones that killed 3000 americans thank allah for Bush sitting on his hands.
You and your puny kind would not have supported squat if it hadn’t of been for 9/11.
That’s funny because:
Clinton did at least do something though certainly he could have done more.
Bush did NOTHING. He actually supported the “Squat” you talked about. You did read the (bi-partisan) 9/11 commission’s report that the president flip-flopped on right Hedo? I’m guessing you listened to the report via Rush based on your disinformation.
My favorite:
“That would require you to face facts and your own shortcomings.”
Lordy the irony!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100M - you have to employed by either Soros, or MoveOn.org. Wait - aren’t they the same thing?
Please -your selective memory, and 20/20 hindsight makes this discussion pointless. You hate Bush. But you are in the minority. The minority you are in wioll be even smaller in 2 years. Lose like a winner - because the broken record you guys fashion to be reason only entertains yourselves.[/quote]
No I’m not. Are you an employee of EIB or the Heritage Foundation? How about Richard Mellon Scaife?
I’m in the 49 percent minority that voted against Bush, or I’m in the 55 percent “minority” that doesn’t approve of Bush?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
With that logic, I think we should close down all grocery stores and restaurants. One of those terrorrist groups could start a business, be successful at it for years just to draw a crowd and then spike all of the food with Smallpox. Because of that, no more stores! Down with food outlets!!!
[/quote]
This is all interesting, and rainjack makes a good point. As for grocery stores and restaurants; we don’t buy our groceries from a country that has no controls as the US does. Do we? I buy mine down the street, and I know that there are controls on imported foods that grace the shelves of the “Hen House”. There are no controls on these drugs from Canada. It’s something that we should at least put some thought around and scrutinize. I’m all for getting drugs cheap, and I don’t care where we get them (I just spent over $100 on allergy crap). I do; however, want to know that our Government (who we all pay a healthy allowance) is scrutinizing any possible threats. I agree that some threats that this Administration has conjured up are a bit weak, but I’m glad that they are not sitting on their asses doing nothing.
WTF does that have to do with anything?
Clinton, Kerry and Kennedy all made similar statements in the late 90’s and early 2000’s.
Are you trying to say our intellegence services suck? They do!
Should we ignore what they say? Probably not.
Do we need some action to lower the costs of prescription medicine? Yes.
Are the artificial price caps in effect in most of the world screwing the US consumers? Yes.
If the US imposed similar price caps as Canada would the R & D budgets of the pharmaceutical companies be significantly reduced? I don’t know.
Should the pharmaceutical companies be wasting money on television advertising instead of using that money for R & D or lowering costs of drugs? I don’t know.
This is the real debate, not the war in Iraq.
As for drugs subsidizing terrorism, I know I quit heroin once I found out the Taliban was making money off it. My drug of choice is now crystal meth, because good old trailer park trash Americans are making the money.
100meters, you are absolutely right.
Bush should have invaded Afghanistan in February 2001 to catch Bin Laden.
Bin Laden already attacked the WTC once during the Clinton years. It was already open season on Bin Laden.
Clinton tried to let the courts round up his guys and of course he shot a cruise missle at Bin Laden during the silly Monicagate fiasco. While the efforts were a bit lackluster at least it was something.
Bush should have tried to one up his efforts and come into office with his guns blazing. After all that is what Al Gore would have done!
100meters, perhaps you should turn your keen eye for government ineptitude to the other side of the aisle once in a while for some perspective. It gets tiresome to see you post the same things over and over again.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Prof X
No I don’t. My feeling is that if the govt. is looking into something there is probably something to it. I don’t know what it is but I don’t think they look at things like terrorism to waste time. I am sure my perspective is different.[/quote]
No one said they are “wasting time”. It is being said that there is an apparent agenda that doesn’t just include terrorism. Beyond that, this comment by you: [quote]How far will it go? I don’t know I guess until the problem goes away. [/quote] is ridiculous. Terror is a concept, much like an idea. It will never “go away”. It is like having a war on rape. There will always be rapists just like there will always be criminals. It is a little like thinking robberies will eventually go away or that fighting will eventually go away. People who think like you are the ones who openly allow more and more rights to be taken away, if for no other reason than you actually trust those in power to a ridiculous degree.
“There are no controls on these drugs from Canada.”
Well, I guess the only reply to this is with some information. You can’t just sell drugs in Canada from the back of a truck, or your basement. First off, you have to be a pharmacist. Then there are laws governing how drugs are handled, stored, protected, and their quality. Pharmacies (including internet pharmacies) must abide by all federal, as well as provincial laws regarding the selling of drugs (some provinces tack on additional conditions). And where do these pharmacies get their drugs? American drug companies.
Internet pharmacies must ALSO abide by the laws of the country they are selling to ie. US laws. To claim there are no controls is simply not true.
“A terrorist group opens up a Canadian pharmacy that caters to Americans looking for a sweet deal. Said pharmacy is a profit center for terrorists. I mean, I know you guys think Giuliani has lost it, but can you say for sure this scenario isn’t at least plausible?”
Rainjack, anything is possible, the real question is how likely is it and what level of controls are there to prevent it. Instead of dealing with fantasy, let’s look at some facts. Canadian internet pharmacies have been in operation for over 4 years. Even though approximately 100,000 Americans die each year due to wrong prescriptions, not ONE death can be attributed to the Canadian sale of drugs to Americans.
Terrorists are going to get you from Canadian pharmacies? This is a red herring people! You don’t think the drug companies want back the 1.1 billion industry now operating in Canada? This has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with lining peoples pockets. And no government would ever side with big companies for money…no…it’s about the safety, and the children, and the safety of the children!!!
And Giuliani making these claims does not make it true, you’re going to have to show me some proof. And while I agree it’s possible (prove it), if it is I hope your government is sharing this information with mine so that these companies are shut down, the people responsible found and arrested and hopefully kicked out of the country (wish we could do worse).
As an aside, last I heard legislation was tabled to ban the internet selling of drugs in Canada due to pressure from Washington as well as Canadian Pharmacist organizations who feel it is unethical to sell drugs to people when you haven’t examined them or don’t know who has (I agree with them).
“I just wished that the Cnadians gave a shit about aiding and abedding terrorists.”
First off, replace “Cnadians” with Canadian government and we might actually have a discussion. I love this country, and if you think for one second that I have a soft spot for terrorism then you are mistaken, it needs to be eradicated. Unfortunately I don’t have the power to set my governments agenda and the party I voted for didn’t win and has no power to push any kind of real agenda.
“We can’t trust the pseudo-frenchies any more than we can trust their panty-waisted cousins acroos the pond.” And “Canada is a friend to our enemies. They’ve admitted as much.”
This I find totally unacceptable Rainjack. If you have a beef with our governmental policies then that is one thing, but to make these statements about all Canadians is highly insulting and without base. My question to you is, which Canadian took the time and effort to head down to Texas and piss in your protein shake?
And yes, I just wasted my first post on the best free bodybuilding website in the political forums…a little piece of me just died.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Please -your selective memory, and 20/20 hindsight makes this discussion pointless. You hate Bush. But you are in the minority. The minority you are in will be even smaller in 2 years. Lose like a winner - because the broken record you guys fashion to be reason only entertains yourselves. [/quote]
It all makes sense now - “bad” means “good”… “up” means “down”. By the time his approval rating hits 10%, we’ll probably all decide the “2 term” limit is too limiting. You might want to cancel that subscription to O’Reilly’s “No Spin Zone” newsletter.
Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point
By E&P Staff
April 05, 2005
NEW YORK It’s not uncommon to hear or read pundits referring to President George W. Bush as a “popular” leader or even a “very popular” one. Even some of his critics in the press refer to him this way. Perhaps they need to check the latest polls.
President Bush’s approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.
All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported.
Presidents Truman and Johnson had finished out the terms of their predecessors, and then won election on their own for a second term.
Bush’s current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.
More bad signs for the president: Gallup’s survey now finds only 38% expressing satisfaction with the “state of the country” while 59% are “dissatisfied.” One in three Americans feel the economy is excellent or good, while the rest find it “only fair” or poor.
http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Gallup%3A+Bush+Approval+Rating+Lowest+
Ever+for+2nd-Term+Prez+at+this+Point&expire=&urlID=13791253&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Feandp%2Fn
ews%2Farticle_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content_id%3D1000866232&partnerID=60
You might want to see about getting your deposit back on that Iraqi condo too while your at it…