[quote]JeffR wrote:
However, I think you are underestimating the chaos on the world markets if Iraq was taken over.
[/quote]
You are overestimating it. Iraqi oil isn’t even making it to market.
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
So, the other day I was driving down my Northern California freeway, when I look up and see a massive sign on the overpass that reads ‘JOIN THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION’.
It made my fucking day, since afterall, my freeway means more to me than fox news ever will. Or any other bullshit bought off slice of piss poor Americana. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy that it’s taken eons to expand the damn thing…
I’m pretty sure I could’ve gotten the job done drunk and equipped with nothing but a jackhammer and rake by now, but I digress. I was thrilled. So thrilled in fact, that I went and bought myself a huge slice of posterboard…
I felt compelled to add a few words to this mysterious message that would escape most, and by most I mean clueless, brainwashed, idiot old voters …the kind that drive like cunts on the same freeway and annoy me on my quest for punctuality on my way to work, to earn my check for social security and health care I will never see.
I got out my sharpie and I went to work. I decided on…
HEY BABYBOOMERS, GOOGLE RON PAUL AND JOIN THE REVOLUTION.
Had to be short and sweet you know. Can’t exactly write the constitution on a freeway sign, although for as much as its read or honored nowadays, I might as well have.
Yeah I’m a real cog in the movement now. I can hear your sarcastic wheels turning, creaking and moaning with your dried up old heartless blood acting as dead lube. Go and comment from the balcony like the old muppets you are. History has no place for you.
[/quote]
I think I love you.
Na, it is just pure sexual desire…
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
As usual your analysis is pure bullshit. Please refer back to my previous posts if you want my opinions on this matter (I assume you do as you responded). I’m not taking anymore time with you for obvious reasons.
[/quote]
You look stupid whenever you do?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
However, I think you are underestimating the chaos on the world markets if Iraq was taken over.
You are overestimating it. Iraqi oil isn’t even making it to market.[/quote]
What?
Oil that isnt even on the market now cannot disturb a market when it isnt there in the future?
Why are you using common sense in an argument about Iraq?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
However, I think you are underestimating the chaos on the world markets if Iraq was taken over.
You are overestimating it. Iraqi oil isn’t even making it to market.[/quote]
You must have skipped over the effect of having an aggressive dictator take over Iraq part.
Use your brain. Imagine the oil prices if iran took over Iraq.
THE FEAR OF THEM CONTINUING ON WOULD RAISE THE OIL PRICES TO ASTRONOMICAL LEVELS.
Opec members needing to raise, equip, armies, equipment.
This would raise the oil prices through the roof.
As everyone knows, when someone lets off a stale popcorn fart, the price of oil doubles.
Imagine al qaeda and or iran taking over Iraq.
You do know that Iraq borders Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Right?
I think THEIR oil makes it to market. Further, I think THEY would be incredibly jumpy.
By the way liftus, I know you are an obtuse bit of flotsam. However, I’m fully aware that you are trying to limit the discussion to suit your pre-arranged stances.
You know full well that if you allowed your brain to think through this situation, then you’d have no choice but to support the effort in Iraq.
As I said, you are an obtuse bit of flotsam. However, even you aren’t stupid enough not to see the ramifications to our country and economy of iran/al qaeda taking over Iraq.
JeffR
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
P.S. When it comes down to Rudy and hillary, who are you going to vote for?
Ron Paul. Liberty rules![/quote]
ron paul–Rage Against the Machine!!!
Get your ass kicked on a monumental scale!!!
Whew!!! What a winner!!!
JeffR
[quote]molotov_Coktease wrote:
So, the other day I was driving down my Northern California freeway, when I look up and see a massive sign on the overpass that reads ‘JOIN THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION’.
It made my fucking day, since afterall, my freeway means more to me than fox news ever will. Or any other bullshit bought off slice of piss poor Americana. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy that it’s taken eons to expand the damn thing…
I’m pretty sure I could’ve gotten the job done drunk and equipped with nothing but a jackhammer and rake by now, but I digress. I was thrilled. So thrilled in fact, that I went and bought myself a huge slice of posterboard…
I felt compelled to add a few words to this mysterious message that would escape most, and by most I mean clueless, brainwashed, idiot old voters …the kind that drive like cunts on the same freeway and annoy me on my quest for punctuality on my way to work, to earn my check for social security and health care I will never see.
I got out my sharpie and I went to work. I decided on…
HEY BABYBOOMERS, GOOGLE RON PAUL AND JOIN THE REVOLUTION.
Had to be short and sweet you know. Can’t exactly write the constitution on a freeway sign, although for as much as its read or honored nowadays, I might as well have.
Yeah I’m a real cog in the movement now. I can hear your sarcastic wheels turning, creaking and moaning with your dried up old heartless blood acting as dead lube. Go and comment from the balcony like the old muppets you are. History has no place for you.
[/quote]
This is the typical ron paul voter.
Anyone still questioning why this guy has no chance?
Rage against the Machine!!! Please notice me, I’m “different.” My dad left because I was a bad person!!!
Instead of being a good person, telling the truth, participating in the process, I’ve got smelly, hair, I lie about women who would never look at me, I scream at Police, and don’t do anything for anyone else!!!
Go ron paul!!!
JeffR
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
…
"Quit throwing the Constitution in my face…it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"George W. Bush
[/quote]
Prove to me he said that.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Prove to me he said that.[/quote]
It’s been debunked as fabricated tabloid trash: the author has admitted to having fictional sources. This is old news - it was essentially blog spam as far back as 2002.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
[/quote]
You asked for some legitimate criticism of ron paul. I gave it to you.
You are not reading what I am saying.
I am saying that withdrawal from Iraq MUST be measured and responsible.
If not, aka ron paul, the vacuum will be filled with some unsavory characters.
That filling leads to serious trouble.
I do think that the U.S. needs to have a small, yet, visible presence (deterrence) in Iraq.
Unless, the elected government asks us to leave completely.
Now, saddam absolutely did harbor and support terrorism. We’ve also found plenty of weaponry that he didn’t declare.
JeffR
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
"Quit throwing the Constitution in my face…it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"George W. Bush
[/quote]
mstott,
Anyone who would repeat this, never supported the war in Iraq. Said person also is not very politically sophisticated.
This was an urban legend that has been proven false so many times that it makes you look awfully bad when you repeat it.
JeffR
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Prove to me he said that.
It’s been debunked as fabricated tabloid trash: the author has admitted to having fictional sources. This is old news - it was essentially blog spam as far back as 2002.
[/quote]
It does indeed appear to be a fabrication. However such statements are unnecessary given the Bush administration’s actions, for they treat the Constitution as the [fabricated] statement boldy pronounces.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
It does indeed appear to be a fabrication. However such statements are unnecessary given the Bush administration’s actions, for they treat the Constitution as the [fabricated] statement boldy pronounces.[/quote]
So it is “fake but accurate”…
Don’t waste my time with the usual canard of “Bush trampling the Constitution”. You haven’t the ammunition to support a claim that the fabricated phrase is reasonably close to the truth, so don’t posture as though you do.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Don’t waste my time with the usual canard of “Bush trampling the Constitution”. You haven’t the ammunition to support a claim that the fabricated phrase is reasonably close to the truth, so don’t posture as though you do.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, US presidents, regardless of party affiliation, as a rule have regularly ignored sections of the Constitution when politically expedient.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Now, saddam absolutely did harbor and support terrorism. We’ve also found plenty of weaponry that he didn’t declare…
[/quote]
JeffR,
All intelligence reports concluded conclusively that Saddam Hussein was clearly at odds with Al Qaeda or any other terrost network which posed a threat to his dominance in the region. In fact when the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq were investigated it was found that Osama Bin Laden had been sponsoring Islamist extremists who opposed Saddam Hussein in Kurd controlled territories of Iraq. This information was presented by the 9/11 commission, a commission comprised of top US security and intelligence officials.
As far as WMD’s being in Iraq - you must realize that you are flying in the face of the analysis from the CIA’s top Weapons Inspector in Iraq when you insist there were any Weapons of Mass Destruction. Of course Saddam had “weaponry” that much was attested to by Scott Ritter the chief UN weapons inspector prior to the invasion of Iraq. I’m sure we found lots of “weaponry” from Saddam but we found no weapons of mass destruction.
As far as the many comments about the quote, it was not fabricated or debunked in 2002 as some have claimed. It appeared in an article by journalist Doug Thompson in the online political ezine “Capitol Hill Blue” on December 5, 2005 (thus making it hard to debunk in 2002). Doug Thompson is an international journalist who credited anonymous sources with providing him this information. If anything this quote remains controversial and tenuous yet to the best of my knowledge it has never been retracted nor proved to be false. Of course, as always, I am up to hearing any information showing me otherwise.
Your comments about my support of the Iraqi war, political sophistication, and looking “awfully bad” really serve no purpose in this discussion. All you have to do is show me when the quote has been proved false or retracted by Doug Thompson and I will gladfully refrain from ever using it again. The quote was purposely placed at the end of my last reply because it characterizes how many constitutional scholars view this current administration treats civil liberties protected by the Constitution.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
As far as the many comments about the quote, it was not fabricated or debunked in 2002 as some have claimed. It appeared in an article by journalist Doug Thompson in the online political ezine “Capitol Hill Blue” on December 5, 2005 (thus making it hard to debunk in 2002). Doug Thompson is an international journalist who credited anonymous sources with providing him this information. If anything this quote remains controversial and tenuous yet to the best of my knowledge it has never been retracted nor proved to be false. Of course, as always, I am up to hearing any information showing me otherwise. [/quote]
Here is a blog study of George Thompson’s puppet show:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003880.html
A few highlights:
[i]And the “goddamned piece of paper” story seems to have disappeared entirely. Why no explanation?
[u]In all, 329 stories were modified or removed from our databases of 25,000 plus articles because of problems encountered when we went back to check on sources or to verify the identity of those quoted. As editor, I was tasked by the publisher to apply new, higher standards for publication of material on this web site and to apply those same standards to stories published in the past.
Most modifications were clarification of source material. Only 12 stories were removed from the archives. However, the modification of 83 stories involved a "named source" we have quoted a number of times and who claimed to be (1) a retired political science professor and (2) a former official in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.[/u][/i]
(underlined section is the website’s text)
[i]MORE: This gets more and more bizarre. It turns out that “Bill McTavish” issued a similar apology and retraction in May:
[u]Please allow me to introduce myself to you, the readers of Capitol Hill Blue.
I'm Bill McTavish, the new publisher of this web site, effective immediately. I'm the head of a new team that takes over Capitol Hill Blue and, we hope, takes the web site in new directions.
When I was asked to take over as publisher of CHB, I insisted that I have the authority to review past articles published on this web site and remove any that I, and others, felt did not meet established standards of impartial journalism, were poorly-sourced or just plain speculation. I brought in journalists I respect and asked them to go through the archives and identify stories where they considered the sources questionable or the facts hazy. As a result of their review, we removed 217 articles from the database archives of more than 25,000 stories.
Gone from the site, for example, are speculative articles on President Clinton's sex life, Mrs. Clinton's sexual preferences, President Bush calling the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper" or various and sundry conspiracy theories. [/u]
STOP right there. That is just wrong. The “goddamned piece of paper” quote was still there yesterday, and it still is.
[u]Gone too are articles where a recheck of sources did not, to my satisfaction, pass the smell test. Some of the articles removed included columns written by our founder and publisher. I'm not saying these stories were wrong, although I had doubts about some of them, but they were not sourced to my satisfaction and were never verified by additional sources or other publications.
Even though they have not been proven wrong (or even denied by the subjects of the story) they did not, in my opinion, pass the standard for verification that now exists for this web site. I may have missed some but if and when someone brings such articles to my attention we will review them, apply the same standards to the others that were removed, and remove them if they fail to meet those standards.
I have brought in a staff of veterans and young professionals to beef up our news coverage and provide a balanced product. Callie Houston now runs our blog, Fred Hylton oversees the editorial product and we have a staff of reporters, researchers and fact-checkers to review every story.
We subscribe to Reuters, AP and Scripps-Howard news service to bolster our news coverage. Our popular discussion board, ReaderRant, continues as an independent web site run by a talented and dedicated group of administrators and moderators. They know how to do their jobs and will get no interference from me.
I consider the past exactly that -- the past. This web site made some mistakes and decisions were made to run with stories that showed, in my opinion, poor judgment. We will remain non-partisan in our approach to news but our goal is news based on fact, not speculation, and truth, not wishful thinking.
We will continue to ask questions that need to be asked and hold all elected officials to an equal, non-partisan standard. I don’t expect you take my word that everything is hunky-dory but I do ask that if someone links to something from our site that it be considered for the content and not simply dismissed because someone may have considered the site questionable.
To answer a question I am sure you have: Yes, Doug Thompson still owns Capitol Hill Blue but he has stepped away from any involvement in the editorial product and now invests his time and resources in a new project aimed at campaign reform. If, and when, he chooses to write columns or articles for this web site they will be subject to the same review, editing and fact checking as any other writer or source.[/u][/i]
Read the whole bit, but then come to the final, disgraceful apology, after Thompson realized his house of cards was tumbling:
[i]Conned Big Time
By Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
Wednesday 09 July 2003
Damn, I hate it when I’ve been had and I’ve been had big time.
In 1982, while I was working for Congressman Manuel Lujan of New Mexico, a man came up to a me during a gathering in Albuquerque and introduced himself as Terrance J. Wilkinson. He said he was a security consultant and gave me a business card with his name and just a Los Angeles phone number.
A few weeks later, he called my Washington office and asked to meet for lunch. He seemed to know a lot about the nuclear labs in New Mexico and said he had conducted “security profiles” for both Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs. Lujan served on the committee with oversight on both labs and he offered his services if we ever needed briefings.
We already had nuclear experts on the committee, on loan from the Department of Energy, and we never used Wilkinson for briefings but we kept in touch over the years. He said he had served in Vietnam with Army Special Force, worked for Air America, later for the FBI and as a consultant for the CIA. He said he had helped other Republican members of Congress I called some friends in other GOP offices and they said yes, they knew Terry Wilkinson.
“You can trust him, he’s one of the good guys,” one chief of staff told me. When I left politics and returned to journalism, Wilkinson became a willing, but always unnamed, source.
Over the last couple of years, Wilkinson served as either a primary or secondary source on a number of stories that have appeared in Capitol Hill Blue regarding intelligence activities. In early stories, I checked his information with at least one more source. His information usually proved accurate and, over time, I came to depend on him as a source without additional backup.
On Tuesday, we ran a story headlined “White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes.” For the first time, Wilkinson said he was willing to go on the record and told a story about being present, as a CIA contract consultant, at two briefings with Bush. He said he was retired now and was fed up and wanted to go public.
“He (Bush) said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn’t prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could,” Wilkinson said in our story. “He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country.”
After the story ran, we received a number of emails or phone calls that (1) either claimed Wilkinson was lying or (2) doubted his existence. I quickly dismissed the claims. After all, I had known this guy for 20+ years and had no doubt about his credibility. Some people wanted to talk to him, so I forwarded those requests on to him via email. He didn’t answer my emails, which I found odd. I should have listened to a bell that should have been going off in my ear.
Today, a White House source I know and trust said visitor logs don’t have any record of anyone named Terrance J. Wilkinson ever being present at a meeting with the President. Then a CIA source I trust said the agency had no record of a contract consultant with that name. “Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever heard of this guy,” my source said.
I tried calling Terry’s phone number. I got a recorded message from a wireless phone provider saying the number was no longer in service. I tried a second phone number I had for him. Same result.
Then a friend from the Hill called.
“You’ve been had,” she said. “I know about this guy. He’s been around for years, claiming to have been in Special Forces, with the CIA, with NSA. He hasn’t worked for any of them and his name is not Terrance Wilkinson.”
Both of his phone numbers have Los Angeles area codes but an identity check through Know-X today revealed no record of anyone named Terrance J. Wilkinson ever having lived in LA or surrounding communities.
His email address turns out to be a blind forward to a free email service where anyone can sign up and get an email account. Because it was not one of the usual “free” services like Hotmail, Yahoo or such, I did not recognize it as one (although you’d think that someone like me would have known better).
The bottom line is that someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme. I’ve spent the last two hours going through the database of Capitol Hill Blue stories and removing any that were based on information from Wilkinson (or whoever he is). I’ve also removed his name, quotes and claims from Tuesday’s story about the White House and the uranium claims.
Erasing the stories doesn’t erase the fact that we ran articles containing information that, given the source, was probably inaccurate. And it doesn’t erase the sad fact that my own arrogance allowed me to be conned.
It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver’s license and his grandmother’s maiden name.
Any news publication exists on the trust of its readers. Because I depended on a source that was not credible, I violated the trust that the readers of Capitol Hill Blue placed in me.
I was wrong. I’m sorry.[/i]
Thompson ducks for cover, and tries to deflect fault by “being had”.
The entire bulk of the Capitol Hill Blue nonsense (even stuff outside the “goddamned piece of paper” story) has been discredited - just don’t tell that to people who believe anything they read.
How can “libertarians” claim to be the ones to “question authority” when they can’t even be bothered to question fishy and suspect stories written by con-men?
[center]High-Risk Credit
by Ron Paul[/center]
As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage-backed securities have been reduced to “junk” ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts.
Why, they say, “if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!” This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.
More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation.
The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.
In addition to the negative reactions in financial markets, many Americans have taken on too much personal debt owing to exotic mortgage products and artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, these families are now in the position of losing their homes in unprecedented numbers as the teaser rates expire and the real bills are coming due.
The real answers are, and always have been, found in the principles of the free market. Let the market set the interest rates. If we had been functioning under a true and transparent free market system, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Government, like the American household, needs to live within its means to get back on stable fiscal ground.
We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision.
The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong to for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.
As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems.
My day just wouldn’t be complete without some Ron Paul propaganda. Set to Pink Floyd, “Welcome to the Machine”:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Here is a blog study of George Thompson’s puppet show:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003880.html
A few highlights:
Thompson ducks for cover, and tries to deflect fault by "being had".The entire bulk of the Capitol Hill Blue nonsense (even stuff outside the “goddamned piece of paper” story) has been discredited - just don’t tell that to people who believe anything they read.
How can “libertarians” claim to be the ones to “question authority” when they can’t even be bothered to question fishy and suspect stories written by con-men?[/quote]
Well I don’t want to disappoint you so allow me to call into question your cutting and pasting tactics.
First of all, it’s Doug Thompson, not George Thompson which alone should speak volumes about your attention to detail.
Second of all, the article that you quoted in it’s entirety regarding the false source was written several years PRIOR to the article containing the “goddamn piece of paper” quote. So what is it’s relevance? and what was your point?
I will credit you for bringing one valid point to this discussion - Bill McTavish did say that the article was speculative. But seeing as I admitted myself the article was controversial and tenuous I am failing to see how you have furthered your point that it was debunked in 2002 (three years prior to it’s being written) and regarded as urban legend.
Now am I being libertarian enough? I certainly questioned your suspicious dismissal of the quote. I’m really curious as to what grants you the ability to know the truth so well that you don’t even have to bother looking things up before you go ahead and speak out about them completely misinformed. Now I’m really curious about your next reaction. Are you going to admit that you botched this one and misspoke before really doing any research or will you try to find new evidence that this quote is urban legend and was debunked in 2002?
On second thought - I don’t really care. This is typical of many of the right winged responses I see around here, people tossing around information before bothering to check the facts or conduct any research. When you did try to research the topic a little bit you were more concerned with supporting your own point than finding out the truth. Your end product was a mismatched conglomeration of half truths and speculation. Congratulations.
In the end, I really don’t care whether or not the quote is true. I am a little more surprised that people have such a hard time believing George Bush could say something like this. The Bush administration has done more harm to our civil liberties than any other administration in our nation’s history. This says a lot more about their blatant disrespect of the constitution than anything which may or may not have been said behind closed doors.
Things are going to be picking up again shortly. We’ve got a Texas Straw Poll on Sept 1 and the next debate on the 5th in New Hampshire.
I was about to say that Ron had better win the Texas Poll, but it looks as though it’s a delegate-only vote. That could make things tough for him. I expect Fred will put on a strong showing. Let’s hope RP is not far behind.
Ft. Worth, Tx: Straw Poll, September 1st
The Ron Paul I Know - Audio Interview with Lew Rockwell
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014833.html
No word yet on the other participants in the debate. Post if you come across it.