patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

I agree...

*

and where would one find this mythical informed conservative?

I don't see any difference at all between the liberal arguments playbook and the conservative arguments playbook except the word bush instead of obama.

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

You've obviously never been to the Middle East...

Kissing cousins... they are all mental cases...

Global Inbreeding

Researchers who study inbreeding track consanguineous marriages—those between second cousins or closer. In green countries, at least 20 percent and, in some cases, more than 50 percent of marriages fall into this category. Pink countries report 1 to 10 percent consanguinity; peach-colored countries, less than 1 percent. Data is unavailable for white countries.

I take it you gave up on trying to defend your other bullshit and decided to go off on a tangent. And you're supposed to reference other people's comments, though of course I'm sure nobody would take that information as being in your own words.

Call it Crazy says

I'm sure the relatives of the dead innocent Iraqis say it's different to die from a cruise missile sent by Clinton versus a cruise missile sent by Bush and they would agree with you...

I'm sure they wouldn't, but then again there were more than a hundred thousand civilians killed under the latter President...

Bigsby says

I take it you gave up on trying to defend your other bullshit and decided to go off on a tangent.

What tangent, they are all mental cases. You cant reason with a rabies infected wild dogs. Since you have a vested interest to protect, they certainly do not include the interests of the West nations.

Bigsby says

I'm sure they wouldn't, but then again there were more than a hundred thousand civilians killed under the latter President...

Inflated numbers... based on some door to door survey and not body count.

Frankly if we killed 25-30K bad guys.. great news for the good guys.. all the better they were killed, no one needs some bloody Middle East killers walking the earth.

What's "Bush's fault" is this:

our collective debt-to-GDP ratio.

This is an artifact of his personal war-mongering 2001-2003, by now having costed us up n the trillions (!) -- this alone may in fact prove to be an expense that will eventually kill this nation as a going concern.

And also the 2001-2003 tax cuts that were an immense give-back to the top 5% who are already taking so much out of the paycheck economy though their successful rent-seeking and collective ownership of corporate america.

And also his administration standing aside as the real estate industry manufactured the mother of all housing bubbles, 2003-2007.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=DVd

annual consumer debt take-on to wages, how fast households were borrowing money.

His SCOTUS and other judicial appointments have generally directed the nation down the shithole, too, e.g. finding an individual right to self defense in the 2nd Amendment (!), throwing back campaign finance limitations.

The damage Bush and his crew did to the US is simply soul-killing, if conservatives were honest they'd be able to see this too.

As for the racism thing, to paraphrase JS Mill, it's not that all conservatives are racists, it's all racists are conservative; the conservative coalition is a collection of some pretty ugly parts of our polity; its got-mine fuck-you "fiscal-conservative" contingent is rather innocuous by comparison.

Bellingham Bill says

This is an artifact of his personal war-mongering 2001-2003

As if the attack on our nation in 2001 was all Bush fault....

Yes War costs money... how else do you put a bullet in the head of some

crazed inbreed middle east terrorist and the armies who protect them ...

Bellingham Bill says

As for the racism thing, to paraphrase JS Mill, it's not that all conservatives are racists, it's all racists are conservative; the conservative coalition

you of all people who lived in Japan should know what Racism truely is.

Would you like an introduction to Civil Rights Act of 1956 during Republican president.

And that would be the one Kennedy was against because " it was too soon".

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

I take it you gave up on trying to defend your other bullshit and decided to go off on a tangent.

What tangent, they are all mental cases. You cant reason with a rabies infected wild dogs. Since you have a vested interest to protect, they certainly do not include the interests of the West nations.

I have a vested interest to protect, do I? What might that be? Perhaps sanity in the face of the inane blatherings coming from ThomasUtterlyWrong.

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

I'm sure they wouldn't, but then again there were more than a hundred thousand civilians killed under the latter President...

Inflated numbers... based on some door to door survey and not body count.

Frankly if we killed 25-30K bad guys.. great news for the good guys.. all the better they were killed, no one needs some bloody Middle East killers walking the earth.

Really? Try googling it. You will find that is the conservative estimate. And we are talking innocent civilians here you complete and utter moron.

Call it Crazy says

I'm sure the relatives of the dead innocent Iraqis say it's different to die from a cruise missile sent by Clinton versus a cruise missile sent by Bush

The breadth of your "But [Obama|Clinton] do it too" arguments is impressive.

I look forward to Smaulgld chastising you for making this sort of argument, which he frowns upon - but something tells me that in your case he won't comment.

Bigsby says

Really? Try googling it. You will find that is the conservative estimate. And we are talking innocent civilians here you complete and utter moron.

Your number is inflated.. and how many Govt soldiers were killed by insurgents and how many insurgents were killed by US and Iraqi govt forces. How many Civilians will killed by insurance... you make it sound WE did all the killings of Civilians only. Only a pacifist would take that side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Family_Health_Survey

The study surveyed 9,345 households across Iraq and was carried out in 2006 and 2007. It estimated 151,000 deaths due to violence (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) from March 2003 through June 2006.

You can define what they mean by "Due to Violence"...

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

The breadth of your "But [Obama|Clinton] do it too" arguments is impressive.

The Clinton-istas are good in denial. War with Iraq was inevitable. There is no other alternative reality you can fall back on.. frankly even many arguments that Iraq didnt participate in 911 is futile. Germany didnt attack Pearl Harbor, yet we all know now War with Germany was also inevitable at the time. At least the Americans back then were more realistic.

Hitler Cracks Up Reading A Letter From Roosevelt In Senate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1FFzh1aekk

thomaswong.1986 says

Your number is inflated.. and how many Govt soldiers were killed by insurgents and how many insurgents were killed by US and Iraqi govt forces. How many Civilians will killed by insurance... you make it sound WE did all the killings of Civilians only. Only a pacifist would take that side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Family_Health_Survey

The study surveyed 9,345 households across Iraq and was carried out in 2006 and 2007. It estimated 151,000 deaths due to violence (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) from March 2003 through June 2006.

You can define what they mean by "Due to Violence"...

You quote something that is higher than my figure and say mine is inflated. Exactly how stupid do you think that makes you look? You can go to multiple sources and quote them if you like. I'm also not quite sure what INSURANCE has to do with the death rate, but I guess you can tell us...

And what do you consider to be the non-inflated number seeing as you have such a concrete grasp of the facts on the ground?

And you seem to have your knickers in a bunch at the idea of someone being a pacifist (which I'm not). I mean really, the sheer horror of someone thinking that war is not justifiable. Imagine if everyone on the planet thought the same way.

Bigsby says

You quote something that is higher than my figure and say mine is inflated. Exactly how stupid do you think that makes you look? You can go to multiple sources and quote them if you like.

out of 9345 households sampled surveyed... extrapolated to the population..

I take it you have a body count figure ?

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

You quote something that is higher than my figure and say mine is inflated. Exactly how stupid do you think that makes you look? You can go to multiple sources and quote them if you like.

out of 9345 households sampled surveyed... extrapolated to the population..

I take it you have a body count figure ?

I take it you don't. What figures does 'Iraq Body Count' come up with? The figures here are not from your knocking on doors survey:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Bigsby says

I take it you don't. What figures does 'Iraq Body Count' come up with? The figures here are not from your knocking on doors survey:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

"Documented civilian deaths from violence" might as well be a robbery, a family blood feud or rape/murder with nothing related to the war.... all from a population pre-2002 of 27.5M. In Other nations its alot worst.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/

Perhaps you should read the incidents on the same page...

12-15 by car bomb or suicide bomber in cafe in Balad

Police colonel by bomb near or attached to car in Yusufiyah

Body of man found bound and blindfolded in south Kirkuk

Bigsby says

I mean really, the sheer horror of someone thinking that war is not justifiable. Imagine if everyone on the planet thought the same way.

Silly Silly Person... of course WAR IS JUSTIFIABLE...

And yes your a pacifist for making that statement...

Your not fit to make a call on such matters...

thomaswong.1986 says

Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for the better part of 1400 years. Consanguineous marriages were originally sanctioned by Islam’s prophet Muhammed, who had a very liberal view on men’s sexual relationships. In addition his many sex slaves, he married several cousins, the divorced wife of his own adopted son and the six year old Aisha, with whom he had sex with when she was nine.

Man you've really got a thing for incest don't you. I'm not surprised.

thomaswong.1986 says

"Documented civilian deaths from violence" might as well be a robbery, a family blood feud or rape/murder with nothing related to the war.... all from a population pre-2002 of 27.5M. In Other nations its alot worst.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/

Perhaps you should read the incidents on the same page...

12-15 by car bomb or suicide bomber in cafe in Balad

Police colonel by bomb near or attached to car in Yusufiyah

Body of man found bound and blindfolded in south Kirkuk

Yeah, your three examples are just your average street crimes you see reported all the time in your local rag. Nothing to do with the consequences of the invasion at all. Following your 'reasoning', I presume, for example, the massive spike in birth defects and cancer in Fallujah are just down to a poor diet rather than depleted uranium.

Again, if you think my 100 thousand figure is wildly inflated, how many do you think were killed because of the invasion and based on what evidence?

Vicente says

Man you've really got a thing for incest don't you. I'm not surprised.

Vice is nice but incest is best. Think Thomaswrong's family tree has any branches at all?

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

I mean really, the sheer horror of someone thinking that war is not justifiable. Imagine if everyone on the planet thought the same way.

Silly Silly Person... of course WAR IS JUSTIFIABLE...

And yes your a pacifist for making that statement...

Your not fit to make a call on such matters...

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it Thomas? I said I wasn't a pacifist. I think war can be justified. But that is simply a consequence of the reality of human behaviour. However, having no wars would hardly be a bad thing, would it? Though seemingly it would be for you, you being an armchair John Wayne and all.

Bigsby says

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it Thomas? I said I wasn't a pacifist

Pacifist is just dear old wong's term for anyone who does not share his bloodlust. His solution to the war on drugs is to drop napalm bombs on the cocoa growing areas. if any children and pregnant women get burnt alive-then it is their fault for being in that area. So he says. The he rails about Muslins being violent-LOL!!

So, how does this Uber thing work anyhow?

That's very partisan. Our district voted to end NSA. Not sure why some people voted to keep it going.

Isn't the free market great.

Buzzed Aldrin says

You know where that gas came from?

The Reagan Administration. The special envoy to Saddam was Rummsfeld."

Yawn, another strawman. Boeing did not provide planes, training, and instructions to the 9/11 hijackers how to fly into the WTC. You may remember the hijackers, well, hijacked the planes.

Here, let me help cure your cognitive dissonance, your charming naive faith in the Goodness of Politicians:

The USG allowed biological and chemical weapon recipes and ingredients, with full knowledge of how they would be employed, to be sent to Saddam.

From the left wing dissident rag, Foreign Policy:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirelyunnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

About PIT, Inc. of Boca Raton, and "Prussian Blue", a chemcial weapon ingredient:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1990-09-18/news/9002140844_1_chemical-weapons-plant-rabta-flavoring

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Friday, June 20, 2014 __ Level is 106.4

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And "ThePublic Be Suckered"
http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

Rumsfeld in particular:

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.

As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks surrounding President Bush.

He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons which it now appears he helped to supply.

The question is: Why has he never said anything about his role in the negotiations?
...
According to the Washington Post, a Senate committee investigating the relationship between the US and Iraq discovered that in the mid-1980s - following the Rumsfeld visit - dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq under licence from the Commerce Department.

They included anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare programme.

The newspaper says: 'The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.'

He has that ass backwards. Supply creates demand not the other way around.

The Professor says

Are you saying that individuals don't have the right to self defense?

No, what I'm saying is what I said in my above.

Read Stevens' dissent:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

and Breyer's:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

for more on Heller.

As for an individual right to keep weapons for self-defense, I believe that is a primary human right, subject to government regulation in the interest of promoting the general welfare, like everything else.

indigenous says

He has that ass backwards. Supply creates demand not the way around.

Supply creates demand? How does one pay for the supply of goods without the means to pay for them?

There was an oversupply of goods throughout the twenties, working class wages however didn't keep up enough to purchase the abundance of goods.

He's trolling (indigenous that is).

oliah says

Do you think its possible that what the consumer lacks in purchase power can be made up in volume? After all, people seem to regard computers and smartphones as much of a necessity now as food (actually more of a necessity - people are perfectly willing to eat "food" at McDonalds to save a few bucks to have the latest iphone). And since the population is ever expanding, won't these new consumers make up for what was lost?

Do you believe a perpetual motion machine is possible ?

So the gist of your argument or question is that maybe population will increase enough to keep the economy from shrinking too much as per capita incomes drop ?

Actually, I can see some sense in this. say the adult population increases 2% per year, and real incomes drop 2% per year. Maybe you're on to something, but it only delays the inevitable by a few years. Because before long, people can not afford even their basic costs of living (rent, food, healthcare).

Maybe the people can just take out home equity loans against their homes, or maybe borrow against their retirement accounts. OH, wait...I think the people have already pretty much exhausted that route.

The Professor says

The first ten amendments are called the "Bill of Rights" for a reason.

yes, to make it clear that we had a federal government of limited powers.

But the Ninth Amendment is actually the most important part of the bill of rights.

Government always needs to weigh its police power with the basic individual right to be let alone to do our things.

http://kevincraig.us/immigration13.htm

Diva24 says

How does one pay for the supply of goods without the means to pay for them?

How does one pay for something that was not produced?

marcus says

Because before long, people can not afford even their basic costs of living (rent, food, healthcare)

on of these is not like the others, in that it does not have a significant labor component in its cost.

Houses, condos, and apartments continue to provide the various utilities of the housing good -- security, privacy, comfort, convenience -- without a great deal of labor; most homeowners see a home-labor person at most several hours per year (not counting gardeners, which tend to have a better cost benefit proposition than other home maintenance professions due to oversupply of that labor category for obvious reasons we need not get into here)

Economic rent is defined as the market price of a good above its cost of provision. What is the cost of provision of an already existing house or apartment?

Pennies a day!

yet we pay so, so much . . .

my thesis is rents may be ground down in the future. We've seen it before, actually:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CUUR0000SEHA

but to get there, things are going to have to be as brutal as they were then.

Bellingham Bill says

Economic rent is defined as the market price of a good above its cost of provision. What is the cost of provision of an already existing house or apartment?

Cost has nothing to do with it.

Industry drives an economy, not services. That's why China is booming and America is declining, thanks to unfair trade deals.