On Dec 10, 2007 10:31 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a really good question. Let's take a vote. Who believes that Iran's
> nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful, and who believes they still have
> ambitions of developing nuclear weapons?
I miss being scared of Communism.
--
ok... evidence please?
On 12/10/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a really good question. Let's take a vote. Who believes that Iran's
> nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful, and who believes they still have
> ambitions of developing nuclear weapons?
>
> I think you can count me,
I don't think it matters how community is achieved as long as it is.
What matters is what it *does* imho.
> Funny question: Would you rather a bunch of people separately come
> together to accomplish something, or a charismatic leader who gathers
> people around to accomplish said thing?
~~
Another old one. What the hell!
On Dec 4, 2007 7:23 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Denstar The Anonymouser wrote:
> > There's no force involved- we are the silly, silly people who want it
> this
> > way.
> >
>
> Every time you create a new tax you are forceably taking the money
>
> I think you can count me, Mike D. and Sam in the latter camp.
I'm on the same side as you on this one.
Hatton
~|
Get the answers you are looking for on the ColdFusion Labs
Forum direct from active programmers and developers.
h
That's a really good question. Let's take a vote. Who believes that Iran's
nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful, and who believes they still have
ambitions of developing nuclear weapons?
I think you can count me, Mike D. and Sam in the latter camp. Anyone want to
go on record saying that Iran's n
The New York Sun describes Tom Fingar as a State Department employee
who was an expert on China and Germany. Mr Fingar's bio shows no
experience in the middle east or its geopolitics.
The New York Sun describes Vann Van Diepen, one of the estimates
main authors, as having spent the last five
You can't really believe Iran's intentions are purely peaceful.
NIE says Iran was building nuclear weapons, then they say they were
wrong. That makes the admin look stupid?
As for the peaceful intentions:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/071206.htm
Iranian Nuclear Program Remains Major Threat Despi
it makes the administration look stupid, but due to its faith-based
foreign policy in the past not due to any partisan spin on the
intelligence agencies' part ';) Seriously Robert, doesn't it make your
head spin trying to keep up with the cant of the day? This
intelligence estimate was made public
You have it backwards. Bush started from the analysis in the 2005 NIE, which
said nothing about Iran shutting down the weapons project. He is clearly
skeptical of the new NIE, and rightly so when its analysis on Iran is 180
degrees from the conclusions the CIA drew in 2005.
As for why the NIE was
I think the key point is that Bush started from a conclusion. The
analysis was supposed to support that conclusion. But ::whoops:: the
analysts went with the facts instead. Give those people a medal I say
;)
The most interesting question in all this imho is why, given that the
estimate makes the p
If the President can't depend on the CIA for intelligence, what data points,
exactly, is he supposed to use to make decision? One minute you are saying
how the NIE shows the war was a huge mistake, the next minute you are saying
the CIA (and therefore the NIE) are irrelevant. Which is it?
On Dec 9
> RoMunn wrote:
> And BTW, I love how when the CIA is wrong about something it is the
> President's fault, and how when they are (maybe) right about something, it
> is still the President's fault.
>
Show me the 2002 CIA report that said there was physical evidence that
Hussein was building a stock
oh! I can help you with that! ::beams::
Fingar, Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill, a former US ambassador to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were able to put out what
they regard as an objective assessment because those occupying senior
roles in the Bush administration had changed. Paul
What the new NIE shows is how foolish it is to take anything the CIA says
without healty skepticism. Why is it that the last NIE in 2005 estimated
that Iran was still developing nuclear weapons and the new NIE says Iran
stopped the program in 2003? Did the CIA not find out anything between 2003
and
Based on the quality of the intelligence from the CIA, I would say it is
exactly what she has in her. :-)
On Dec 8, 2007 12:19 PM, Dana wrote:
> so you think Arianna Huffington is behind the National Intelligence
> Estimate? I didn't know she had it in her :)
>
> Dana wrote:
> so you think Arianna Huffington is behind the National Intelligence
> Estimate? I didn't know she had it in her :)
>
The NIE is yet another data point on how massively stupid invading
Iraq was. It shows Iraq begging to cut a deal with us prior to
invasion and laughing at us - if n
so you think Arianna Huffington is behind the National Intelligence
Estimate? I didn't know she had it in her :)
On Dec 8, 2007 11:44 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe in hyper-partisan anti-Bush circles like The Daily Kos and The
> Huffington Post.
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 10:44 AM, D
Maybe in hyper-partisan anti-Bush circles like The Daily Kos and The
Huffington Post.
On Dec 8, 2007 10:44 AM, Dana wrote:
>
>
> What the heck is a hyper-partisan anti-Bush official anyway. I suspect
> that
> in other circles the term might be "advocate of the constitution" or
> "economist."
>
who cares what the Wall Street Journal editorial page has to say :) Its
news reporting *has been* balanced (tho Murdoch may change this) its
editorial page has not. Based on my reading on the topic, military
intelligence had a lot of input into that estimate.
What the heck is a hyper-partisan
Riiight, nice spin there. Here is a little spin about the report back at
you, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page:
"Our own 'confidence' is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main
authors include three former State Department officials with previous
reputations as 'hyper-partisan an
figures ;)
tho I thought the revelation that you had been lied to yet again might have
done the trick
Dana
On Dec 7, 2007 6:19 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I posted in response to Gel's post, my position has been basically the
> same since their nuclear program came to lig
As I posted in response to Gel's post, my position has been basically the
same since their nuclear program came to light. The international community
should use every available means to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear
weapon. Iran should be rewarded for cooperating and punished for failing to
c
I have no idea. Why should I care?
Incidentally, Robert, have you changed your mind about Iran?
Dana
On 12/4/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Didn't Joe Biden vote for the use of force resolution? He is becoming a
> pandering ass, it's sad what the Presidential race does to good peop
Didn't Joe Biden vote for the use of force resolution? He is becoming a
pandering ass, it's sad what the Presidential race does to good people.
On Dec 4, 2007 6:19 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > Dana wrote:
> > yeah it was while it lasted! Americans really don't appreciate their
> > Constitution, I swear..
> Denny wrote:
> There's no force involved- we are the silly, silly people who want it this
> way.
>
Every time you create a new tax you are forceably taking the money
from someone's pocket. The only vote they have to stop you is via a
representative who will likely agree to take it; which is why
> Dana wrote:
> yeah it was while it lasted! Americans really don't appreciate their
> Constitution, I swear
>
I agree! Joe Biden is going to deliver a great piece on how the
President does not have the authority to conduct a war.
~
yeah it was while it lasted! Americans really don't appreciate their
Constitution, I swear
On 12/4/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> nice try ;-)
>
> On Dec 3, 2007 11:22 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> > ummm... something about free and fair elections??
> >
> > ::flees::
> >
>
>
>
nice try ;-)
On Dec 3, 2007 11:22 PM, Dana wrote:
> ummm... something about free and fair elections??
>
> ::flees::
>
~|
Check out the new features and enhancements in the
latest product release - download the "What's New P
ummm... something about free and fair elections??
::flees::
On 12/3/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, I just have to ask, what was it again that made this country what it
> is?
>
> On Dec 3, 2007 5:38 PM, Dinner wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > And yet, I'm fearful for how little, peopl
to Chavez? Well, it did occur to me that if he lost maybe the election was
not all that damn rigged. Hmm? We should do so well here.
Just saying
On 12/3/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> has anyone said, hahahahahahaahahaha you lost?
>
> just wondrin'
>
> On 12/3/07, Dinner <[EMAIL PROT
OK, I just have to ask, what was it again that made this country what it is?
On Dec 3, 2007 5:38 PM, Dinner wrote:
>
>
> And yet, I'm fearful for how little, people value the stuff that made this
> country
> what it is- and most of the people I "fear" consider themselves
> "patriots".
> Ironic.
not with congressman makin money off it themselves with their own farms!
nice
On 12/3/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't even get me started on farm subsidies. I believe in protecting our
> food supply, but the subsidy system is not the way to do it. It's a disgrace
> and needs to
On Dec 3, 2007 8:44 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gel wrote:
> > What if the government subsidises prices?
> >
>
> Where does gpvernment get the money to do that? Government is funded
> by taxes and any taxes that fund the government come directly from the
> pockets of people.
>
>
Don't even get me started on farm subsidies. I believe in protecting our
food supply, but the subsidy system is not the way to do it. It's a disgrace
and needs to go. Unfortunately, politics being what it is, there is no
chance in hell the farm subsidy system is going away anytime soon.
On Dec 3,
has anyone said, hahahahahahaahahaha you lost?
just wondrin'
On 12/3/07, Dinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 8:44 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Gel wrote:
> > > What if the government subsidises prices?
> > >
> >
> > Where does gpvernment get the money to do tha
Really now. This would of course be why we spend so much money on subsidies
here ;)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html
On Dec 3, 2007 8:55 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's how you end up with Soviet-style communism. By all repo
That's how you end up with Soviet-style communism. By all reports, the black
market is flourishing for items like sugar that are officially under price
control. The Soviets tried centrally controlled production, distribution,
and pricing, and the result was a stagnant economy, massive shortages of
> Gel wrote:
> What if the government subsidises prices?
>
Where does gpvernment get the money to do that? Government is funded
by taxes and any taxes that fund the government come directly from the
pockets of people.
So you're proposeing:
(1.) Forceably take money from people who could use it
What do you mean? You talking about the government covering a certain
shortfall in the price of an item? So an apple that costs $.50 based on S&D,
is fixed at $.30, with the government covering the $.20 short fall for every
apple purchased?
Is that what a "government subsidy on price" means?
On D
Looks like he is eating well to me. How about we ask Sean Penn, Cindy
Shehan(sp) and the other bleeding hearts who love the man so much how
well he and they ate when they were having their love fest.
Gruss Gott wrote:
Because their leader is a military dictator with zero governmental
manage
What if the government subsidises prices?
On Dec 3, 2007 10:59 AM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any first year economics student can answer that one Gel..supply and
> demand. You simply cannot artificially set a price. If the price is not
> allowed to fluctuate based on the normal flo
On Dec 3, 2007 8:51 AM, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be interesting to find out how oil rich Venezuela
> could be experiencing so much food shortages.
>
Any first year economics student can answer that one Gel..supply and
demand. You simply cannot artificially set a price. If t
> Jerry wrote:
> The complete opposite just happened in Russia. Putin has been re-elected
> with pretty much carte blanche.
>
No worries! George was curious, looked into Putin's eyes, and saw the
heart of a democrat.
So no worries, because when has Bush's judgment ever been wrong?
> Gel wrote:
> It would be interesting to find out how oil rich Venezuela
> could be experiencing so much food shortages.
>
Because their leader is a military dictator with zero governmental
management experience or talent who sees himself as having won the
lottery?
Do you think Chavez is experie
All this mentions is :
A) The ability to create states and appoint governors
B) The ability to spend central bank reserves.
I thought there was far more than that, actually.
It would be interesting to find out how oil rich Venezuela
could be experiencing so much food shortages.
On Dec 3, 2007 1
> Gel wrote:
> What else was included in the proposal other than he could run in
> democratic elections again in 2012?
>
FYI, from the Wall Street Journal:
---
* a constitutional reform he sought to expand his executive powers and
allow him to stand
The complete opposite just happened in Russia. Putin has been re-elected
with pretty much carte blanche.
~|
ColdFusion is delivering applications solutions at at top companies
around the world in government. Find out how and w
> Gel wrote:
> What else was included in the proposal other than he could run in
> democratic elections again in 2012?
>
The opposition wasn't allowed in the room to hear the results.
It's not about the individual steps - their always justifiable or
seemingly harmless - it's where they lead. And
> gMoney wrote:
> Thank god. I'm alarmed that the vote was as close as it was.
>
Socialism is a demagogic gold mine! You manipulate people's emotions,
playing on their fears, and reassuring them that their problems and
shortcomings are someone else's fault.
You tell them that if only they gave y
Yeah, that's what it's similar too.who in their right mind would support
something like that? The proposal also had other stipulations in it that
broadened the president's power, but I never read anything that specifically
spelled out what those powers were.
On Dec 3, 2007 8:17 AM, Vivec <[EMA
What else was included in the proposal other than he could run in
democratic elections again in 2012?
My understanding is that it is similar to a referendum allowing Bush
to run again in next year's election in the US,
and every election thereafter.
~~~
Thank god. I'm alarmed that the vote was as close as it was.
On Dec 2, 2007 11:46 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Breaking news update on Breitbart that Chavez has lost, here is a blurb
> from the article:
>
> CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defea
Breaking news update on Breitbart that Chavez has lost, here is a blurb
from the article:
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat
in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for
re-election indefinitely, the chief of National Electoral Counci
54 matches
Mail list logo
