This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul: "I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon"
There are those who say that while they agree completely with Ron Paul's economic policy of fixing the #1 issue that ails America (as a reminder, total US debt/GDP would only decline under a Ron Paul presidency) they disagree with Paul on his foreign policy. We wonder why when all he does is instead of appealing to the jingoism of warmongers and patronizing the basest of herd instincts, he simply tells the truth. Such as on Today's State of the Union show on CNN when asked if Obama has done "enough" to force Iran to stop its nuclear development via sanctions and others, his reply was spot on: "I think he gets too much involved. I think sanctions gives the motivation for them to want a nuclear weapon. We have 45 bases around them, we can demolish them within hours. And the worst thing the sanctions do, and Republicans and Democrats both support it and the other GOP candidates want war even more, the whole thing is there is a lot of dissension in Iran and we should encourage it by not interfering, once we get involve and threaten to bomb them, it becomes nationalistic - everyone joins the Ayataollah and Ahmedinejad. So there is a blowback - unusual circumstances and unintended consequences. So yes, our people are well-intended, but they don't realize how much damage they do by not accomplishing what they want and causing more harm to us. So our military personnel right now are very adamant not to be involved in a bombing of Iran, it makes no sense whatsoever to our military personnel, to the CIA, even though they are much more interventionist than I am."
And probably even more important in light of Obama's apology for burning down Korans (but not for pictures of torture), Paul had this to say: "I thought McNamara was rather astute when he they asked him about the mess he caused in Vietnam: "don't you think you should apologize to the American people and to the world" he said: "what good is an apology: if you make mistakes and you see this and you stir enough trouble, why don't we change our policy. That's what he said: "we should change our policy." So if we have a policy going on in the middle east that is begging that we apologize now and then and others condemning it, I think we should reassess our foreign policy, and that is what I think we are not doing, and that is why I am quite different than the other candidates - the American people are sick and tired of the wars going on over there, we are going broke fighting these wars that are not legitimate in that we were not attacked, they were not declared, and the American people in their majority want us out of there."
»
- 21460 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
And the way Qadaffi was overthrown having sucked up to his NATO overlords. And the way North Korea is conveniently left alone now they have nukes. Our foreign policy is completely stupid.
Iran is exporting NO LESS OIL THAN IT DID BEFORE SANCTIONS.
They gave China a discount to make that happen. Then the price of oil went up and they are making the same money they made without the discount.
THEY ARE UNDER ZERO PRESSURE. THEY ARE NOT DESPERATE.
The beating of the war drums is just insane. Just what is expected from all this? Does the "moral war" faction from Hillary's State Department and the DNC expect a country that overthrew the Shah to embrace Islam more tightly would now suddenly open new gambling . . . pardon the expression . . . Mecca's?
Achmeblahblahjob WON HIS ELECTION. There was probably cheating and his reported margin was likely larger than reality, but his margin was so large that even 5% cheating would still yield a win. He won. He is what the people there want. (Of course, the Libyan majority were also very pleased at Gadaffi's paying 100% college tuition for their college aged children to go to university anywhere in the world, but that didn't stop NATO, whose oil companies informed their governments that they were about to lose their oil production contracts there to PetroChina and PetroBras, because Gadaffi wanted them out).
Iran is post Peak. They are not the only source of nuclear weapon proliferation threat. They are not desperate and not likely to attack anyone in desperation.
The whole concept is election year politics.
It is only a matter of time for any idiot, if unrestrained, to reach nuclear capacity.
Technology becomes cheaper and more user friendly.
Information and know-how flows more and more over time.
Does this mean we should do nothing?
Quite the contrary, this means we should throw these people back to stone age and make sure we keep them there. And we should do it ASAP.
Why don't you go build a bomb?
I don't have to, my democracy has them for me.
You are a simpleton.
Simpleton maybe, but more like being paid time and a half for working the blogs on a Sunday.
nah-nah
no pay here, no elephantiasis either.
Just a guy who believes the western civilization needs to confront the perils of nuclear proliferation.
Yes, in fact it is simple and I am a simpleton: I want to survive and I want my descendants to survive as well.
There is only one country who has ever dropped a nuke on another country.
Do you know which one it is?
that is so boring
I know. I'm sorry.
Here's a video you may enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
....boring ---> http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05...
Correction.. there is only one country who has ever dropped TWO nukes on another country.
That was a plus 1 comment -- literally.
Pretty insane and really puts current events in perspective.
First whips the money-changers out of Dodge, then truth-telling to the sheep.
This has traditionally been the quickest way to get revered, then Crucified.
I want to survive and I want my descendants to survive as well.
But you're ok with USA going around wiping out other people (and their descendants) under the banner of controlling nuclear arms?
If USA attacks / invades Iran, American cities will be nuked (by Russia).
So what's more important? Keeping your sorry ass alive, or preventing Iran from having nukes?
With your sorry attitude you shouldn't be allowed to have any descendants. You should be sterilized ...or better yet, killed altogether.
Let's hope you live in one of those American cities getting nuked.
I see you are much in favour of democratic, open, plural discussions.
Russia will not nuke America, that is nonsense.
Then find one for you to sit on.
I agree. Israel with its 300+ nuclear bombs should be thrown back to the stone age. That whole country is full of paranoid schizophrenic psychopaths.
less than half it seems. only the least able are in charge.
Perhaps someone should look in their own mirror.
I've read a number of your comments and have gone to many of your suggested links and do find some of the links very interesting. You are obviously a very bright person. Here comes the but...
In spite of your claim of not hating and entire religious group you consistently tar ALL Jews in total when you make most of your derogatory comments. I am descended from people who consider themselves Jewish. I consider myself of Jewish heritage but don't object if you want to refer to me as a Khazar though it may be inaccurate . I do not practice any religion. You know nothing about me yet you claim repeatedly the world would be better off without the likes of me. I suggest sir that the world would be better off without the likes of you. I mean no slander against any other person of your genetic pool or belief systems. I refer only to you as a peddler of hate to anyone who will listen.
--
You and General Curtis Lemay would have got on famously, he was also psychopathically belligerent:
--
I think we can file that sort of sad mentality under, "what not to do".
spiral eyes,
norh korea isn't left alone because they have nukes. we leave them alone because they have nothing that we and our corporate overlords can steal and profit off of. no oil, no gold, no need for pipelines through it and no other tangible wealth? ok, then no US thieves. it's that simple.
there's always a resource to be gotten from war:
more government largesse for the military-industrial complex.
we bomb somalia, but leave kim jong-un alone. hmm.
Their ability to put half a million artillery shells into Seoul in an hour might also be relevant.
For AAPL?
And let's not forget that last time Chinese soldiers and Russian Pilots kicked the 'UN' forces arse, for quite some time.
That also might have something to do with it.
They also have a Big friend named China. The last time the U.S. tried to intervene militarily in N Korea we had the Korean War.
That went well.
They say that suicide is painless but I'd rather not find out for sure.
Brilliant
@Vince
Korea
The first of many losses?
Oh, shit----I forgot custer!
never mind om
Actually, the war was already well under way. South Korea was almost completly wiped out with only the Pusan perimeter holding out with their backs to the ocean. Only massive air attacks from Japan and US carriers and desperate close combat held off the North Koreans until the Inchon landings sliced all the supply lines and caused he NK army to utterly collapse. South Korean troops even managed to take Pyongyang and the North was almost finished. Had China not sent thousands of troops over the Yalu river and attacked UN forces into their flanks, causing a massive retreat of UN forces and the infamous Chosin Reservoir fighting withdrawel, Korea would be united today and probably nearly equal to Japan in economic power. Truman had his chance years earlier to really back up the Nationalist Army during the Chinese Civil War and defeat the Russian backed communists led by Mao, but he dropped the ball big time and Asia is what it is today because of it. Just saying.
I think the real reason we leave them alone is because we actually learned a lesson at the Chosin Reservoir. China dosen't want anybody playing in their North Korean sandbox, even if it's filled with broken toys and smells like a sesspool.
I wouldn't be surprized if we start to see a rash of oil field related sabatage in those M.E. countries that we've swindle with paper printing. Not sure how our overlords would deal should that start to happen. Seemed strange how quickly S.A. denied the pipeline explosion as if to try and nip what revolt momentum might be building.
Crashis: "Just what is expected from all this?"
Same thing as always, a continuation of the geopolitical and military dominance of the Middle East by the US and Israel without any potential input that might come from a nuclear armed Persian Gulf state. That's what it's about, that's what it's aways about. Fear of attack by Iran is just the BS spewed to whip up the fear factor of the typically ignorant citizens of the US.
Any nuclear weapon from Iran or anywhere else has a return address on it, if not by the trajectory and flight characteristics of the missile then by the specific isotopic composition of the fissile material and fission products that can be analyzed after the blast. Therefore, why should the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction work less well to deter a country with a few nuclear weapons from attacking the US than it did for the Soviets? It should deter even better since the destruction would be mostly one way -- on the country that attacked the US. The truth lies here: would the US have attacked Iraq for a "regime change" if Saddam had had nuclear weapons? The answer is the same as it currently is for N. Korea and Pakistan who have nuclear weapons - NO. And that is the major reason these small nations want nuclear weapons. It's "regime change" deterrence.
Do I want US domination of the Middle East? Yes. But lets get real about the true reasons behind the news propaganda.
I was with you until THAT, but why do you want such a barbarous and unjust thing?
Ultimately you're saying that the guy with the most guns has all the rights on planet Earth, and that national Sovereignty and law of any other people must give way to US JDAMs.
If so, yeah, you'll definitely getting WWIII that way.
Because that shit is competing for the most Hitler-esque global conquest sentiment I've read so far today.
+1 might makes right? sounds like a very goood way to lose the support of all allies and lose that very hegemony
I'm no Angel Ghordius, but I feel dirty every time I read one of these sick Iran-attack war threads and see what people are chomping at the bit for, and expressing quite insane attitudes and intents.
I understand, though I have to point out that the American Vocabulary has somewhat evolved. Words like War on..., Fighter, Fight, Dominate, Dominance, etc. are more neutral/positive, i.e. less literal than in the rest of the world.
Exchange the statement with one with "arbitrate" or "monitor", for example.
Perhaps you have followed the statements going in the direction of "Germany wants to dominate...". About the same.
Ok, though I don't know if that equates to less offensive or less arrogant, or considerably more so? These words still have the same definitions, though they may be getting said in a more flippant and 'acceptable' manner, taken less seriously than before, mainly because people rarely shoot back, or at least rarely survive if they do shoot back at Americans, in the ME. Maybe that's why they feel it's their place to use such outrageous sentiments, and don't suspect it's going to be a problem? I suspect more of late that they're simply totally disconnected from the reality of such remarks and just don't give a shit, devoid of all human commonality.
'Unworthy' is the word that keeps springing to mind.
I've not read comments RE Germans etc.
Ron Paul is the man.
Jewellery in Canada
And Saudi Arabia raised prices for Asian customers while lowering them for Europe and the USA, because they are among the most adament that Iran not get a bomb.
Ron Paul is the ONLY true man left running. Even if he doesn't win, his message will. Once again this is another great example of his wisdom. Ron Paul 2012!
http://ronpaul2012blog.blogspot.com/
The bankers/CIA are in control and they want their Romney. They follow my idea in Washington and ship in the senile seniors from their homes to vote. Fucking time for us to play dirty too.
Everytime I make comment have to clean up my computer ZH, WTF.
U.S. politics has become the laughing stock of the world. Nervous laughter though...because people know one of these nutcases might end up with his (or her) finger on a big fat red button.
It's only when I hear Ron Paul that I'm proud again. His words show the world that there are still a few who have a grasp of reality and are not just utter puppets of the corporate/banking/military monster.
What other country has an "evolution problem"? More than 100 Congressmen who do not even believe in evolution. No wonder America is 24th in the world in science & engineering. Again, the laughing stock.
We can only make a change as people get informed and aware. Keep working on it. Online, at the gym, at the bar, in your neighborhoods. The more people who know, the less power the fascisti can keep. Keep truthtelling as long as it's still (mostly) legal.
You were doing fine until the evolution shit. Then YOU became the laughingstock.
Part of the problem of this country is the inability to differentiate reality from fiction....
Genesis is a nice story, but it has nothing to do with reality and should never be mentioned within the context of a policy debate...
Creation and evolution are nice theories but they have nothing to do with reality and should never be mentioned within the context of a policy debate...
Fixed it.
Playing the fool are we?
That being said, I do not see too many instances where Evolution would have a place in forming public policy...
Whereas Genesis seems to rear its ugly head far too many times and in too many legislatures...
Uh-huh, God stuck all the fossils of seashells inside the rocks on the top of Mt. Everest...was that on the fifth day, or the sixth? Go outside and look up...is the sky green...or pink?
he din't say anything about "god" that i see
he was responding to your "belief in evolution" thingy
and he did a damned good job, imo
that fact that "genesis" may be a, b, or c doesn't really effect the hypothesis that "belief in evolution" may be extemely shoddy science
now, does it?
Slewie, I really recommend that you fire up the recent NOVA on "What Darwin did not know"...
When you can identify the common genes responsible for limbs/fins I'd say you are on to something...
You do know that we have indentified the DNA responisible for the opposing thumb?
i did not mention darwin; nor did anyone else
you can state whatever theory you are willing to accept
what the hell do i care?
nor am i talking about DNA, as my piece below, points out
i am also coming from a "material theory" flak: metaphysics!
L0L!!! here we have the "crazy idea" of "scale"
for example, we might say, as did the ancients and some of the moderns i have worked with too, that the earth is above the moon, metaphysically
symbolically, if you are enuf of a "scientist" to understand me, ok?
the sun is above the earth
now, it is not that there is only one-way tripping between the 'higher' and the 'lower' b/c it is two-way and that also should not be taken too literally, but as a symbol of relationship and what is known as transformation as in: the sun 'creating' weed and alcohol by various transformations, even as i write this nonsense
any_how, the hemp probably didn't cause the BEing of the Sun, if you follow...
so, we have the "metaphysical principle" that: >> the higher acts upon the lower<< and i mean this primarily, not as an invariable rule
certainly, the moon is part of the gestalt in which my blogging is held, but i am trying to write about life on earth, of course
whenever slewie sees an "evolving" process, he likes to remember this simple yet ancient "fact"
since we usually just figure "more or less" the actual metaphysical basis of the situ is often grossly distorted especially in "colloqual" thought
"higher" does not mean "more" [except as scale is taken account]
so much (admittedly "popular") "belief in evolution" seems to insist that eveything (!!!) comes from "below", metaphysically
grave error is grave error; and that is a grave error, BiCheZ!
trust me
and i, too, have a totally opposinging thumb, bro!
That's ok Slewie, no one mentioned Genesis either ... until Flak did.
Can you say agenda?
Element, you have already demonstrated your complete lack of analytic abilities elsewhere....
The only agenda I adhere to is one where rational thought prevails, not mystical bullshit and ideologically inspired "science" that you seem to prefer....
You sound like a desperate man.
Explain to us why AGW is wrong.... in your own words, using scientific and not ideological arguments...
Show us what you got, buddy...
The opposable thumb is nothing but an instigator. I prefer the affable thumb.
When you can identify the common genes responsible for limbs/fins I'd say you are on to something...
Great. Now tell us how an organism consciously changes its DNA to "evolve" different traits in its offspring. Then I'd say you're on to something.
Until then it doesn't matter how many genes you identify. You're no closer to any scientific proof of evolution.
Where did you come across this novel 'theory' of evolution?!?
In Darwinian evolution, an organism does not change its DNA in any way. It mixes its DNA with the DNA of a mate and has a number of offspring -- each with a different DNA combination of its two parents (including a few random gene mutations unrelated to the parents). So, if the pairing has 4 offspring, each of those 4 will have different characteristics that will see each of them either survive and procreate or not. The more successful will go on to repeat the process for each of hundreds of thousands of generations over the span of millions of years, while the less successful will simply die off without procreating.
I'm not sure how your theory fits in with that?
One little problem with your theory. No evidence of a species mating with a different species, yeilding different physical traits (like non-webbed feet offspring from a webbed-feet parent).
So your theory still has no scientific evidence to support it ...and you won't be able to find any in the future.
Your theory of Darwinian Evolution is nothing more than a belief. Just like religious beliefs.
Darwinian Evolution is a religion, not a science. It relies on mere beliefs with no scientific evidence to support them.
It means DE is no closer to science than Creationism. Both rely on unproven (and unprovable) beliefs.
Theory is not fact until it is demonstrated (proven) via scientific method.
Therefore Darwinian Evolution should not be taught as fact, like it is in most colleges these days. It should be taught as a theory, a possibility, not fact.
That's all I have to say about this. No other argument you might come up with has any merit.
I strongly suggest you take the time to see the NOVA I pointed out..
You will be very surprised...
COG would not understand Nova so don't bother. As to evolution, which by the way is no longer considered a theory but a proven law having been observed in great detail, not only can a member of a species change his/her body right down to it's fundamental building blocks scientists have recently observed that as well.
A single member of a species can change their epigenetics without necessarily changing their chromasomes or DNA. And, most of our genetic material is "silent," It appears to be switched off at any given time, that part which is switched on and active, the expressed part you can see, is called epigenetics. So, a person might drink protein shakes and work out to grow their body by 50 or 60 pounds above their usual weight and their underlying genetics will be the same, but their epigenetics have changed, science is now proven that is heritable.
Of course no religious nut is going to read about it, understand it, or believe it. You know I have met people here that insist that evolution is nothing but a trick the Devil plays on us to seperate us from god. And there are people like that posting here, there are people like that running nations.
I do hope that those who support religion (any of them) are wrong, bucause if they are right the universe was created by an ignorant psychopathic bastard so mentally deranged that Adolph Hitler looks like a high functioning reasonable dude by comparison. Thankfully they are full of shit.
See what homeschooling and/or the teaching of intelligent design does? You are clearly confused about how things work...
It is that or a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger....
Maybe you should watch the NOVA in question, it is available online and explain to me the stickle-back fish observations...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html
That is some of the most dumbed down and pedestrian stuff I've seen. Doesn't even come close to addressing Intelligent Design. I guess it further disproves popular opinion and Catholic dogma of 200 years ago. Woopee.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my neighbor homeschooled her son and he just graduated from a top three engineering school with honors. Go figure. Fucking NOVA, what a joke.
Most people don't even fucking know what evolution is. They think survival of the fittest means survival of the strongest or evolution is equal to progress. Science still doesn't know how to even define species for all of life. There are so many fundamental blank spots and NOVA goes out and finds fucking fly people talking basic gene regulation. Oh wow! Amazing! I'm sure all those fucking drosophila grunts slaving away with tiny fucking flies with terrible job prospects are all heartened. Then NOVA finds some fucking informatics guy who does the most boring human chimp comparisons. Fucking amazing shit, moron.
many years ago, my daughter came to the place i was living out on the coast; it was the thanksgiving recess of her freshman year at a university known for it's science, medicine and public health
after about the third time she used "evolve" as a verb to "explain" something not even remotely biological, i went fightClub on her! L0L!!!
she did pretty well for a first-semester freshman! after about an hour, a pot of coffee and two joints, she summed it up, as follows: "DAD!!! everybody knows evolution is true!"
she had learned that well!
again, 'evolution' is, unfortunately, a "belief" system for many people. they don't really understand the biological "theory" and what it might mean, IF it could, somehow be "proven" [like the acceleration due to gravity, for example] which, btw, it cannot be. it can be accepted, but not proven. the gravitational constant of 32ft/sec2 can be measured, by contrast; there is no evolutionary constant to be measured!
now, if you don't fall into this common "trap", great!
but when you write about somebody's lack of "belief in evolution", i kinda wonder, is all...
how you relate it "engineering" is a little bit weird tho... genetics is NOT 'evolution', ya know! you are aware of that, aren't you? biology and mechnical sciences are really quite different, ya know? but we use engineering and math in bio all the time, especially to design experiments and equipment! and you prbably use biology in laying pipe, too...
and none of that proves or disporoves anything about "god" or "genesis" [you may not be able, cogently, to define either term, perhaps, from an engineering point of view, you know?] anyway, now does it?
but the comment i am replying to is pretty styoooopid as a response to what the person actually said to you and probably meant, too....you do know at least that, don't you?
"belief in evolution" is a sympton of deep sleep which almost all "educated" people share just from hanging out and bullshitting in the dorm and over chow!
the real cases even "oppose" it to "belief in god" or "gelief in genesis" [whatever that means, except tp "prove" they are not scientific if they don't "believe in evolution", if you can still follow me here]
for billions of people who can't think straight, this must be quite the conundrum!
if, an "educated" person is somehow able to escape from this mass conditioning about the "belief in evolution", this does not necessarily mean that that individual MUST take the symbols of the bookOfGenisis in theBible concretely, or literally
only a complete and hopeless fool would assert such nonsense among thinking adults, especially here!
Thank you for this. Let me sum it up for everyone: the theory of evolution is shitty science.
no
the theory of evolution is a scientific theory which should be discussed more scientifically than, say, emotionally, as we are best able to understand wtf we are talkin about
"belief in evolution" is an intellectual plague upon the planet, imo
but i cerainly have understood for going on 1/2 century that it is standard cirriculum and if ya wanna 'matriculate', ya gotta get that "sheepskin"!
Slewie, I never understood how evolution could work with random mutations without having huge junkyards several miles high of failed experiments for every mutation that becomes a survival trait. Especially when you consider how absolutely fined tuned organisms are. While evolution undoubtedly plays a role in the forms of organisms, perhaps there's something else going on. For instance, one becomes familiar with attractors in differential equations, which are completely determined by the parameters of those equations and it can take the solutions forever and a day to find their way into a basin of attraction and they can circulate there forever in the case of a strange attractor. Many would call that basin of attraction a form of teleology. If our underlying variable is t=time units, then this basin of attraction is off in the future. Yet something like that could work along side random mutations and natural selection to explain why we do not see failed evolutionary experiments several miles thick. So the strict natural selection folks who have made a religion out of Darwin may be failing to see the forest for the trees due to their essentially 19th century worldview.
i'm not sure i understand you
but i'll see, ok?
sound like you don't accept the theory of evolution in the first sentence
your scientific/intuitive reasons for doing so are gonna take me a minute
the teleological "basin of attraction" sounds teillhardian
teilhard was a catholic theologian; theology = from within the church; the pope/s had his/their hands full with this guy [teilhard deChardin], as with others, but the end result was dialogical and not too strict, either, imo. as a trained scientist, he postulated the "omega point" as a teleological (and christ-like, i would say) "abstraction" with functional, develop-mental aspects similar to what you seem to be saying, here
in classical metaphysics, the "higher" is at a different "level" or "dimension" than the lower; this does not refer to teilhard's thought; i an talking about the fundamental mathematical expression; those integrating/differentiating symbols
this is the faustian fallacy, in terms of psychological symbology, perhaps: that wo/man can forget her/his "place" in the overall scale of things and still remain sane and healthy. when we want too much "out there" we may become impoverished "in here" and perhaps vice-versa, too...
often, "higher" means "inner" in much of the symbolic lore; perhaps even teleologically
sun-earth-moon; a little child can understand this; it is part of the scale of the universe; and it is not bullshit, either
how silly is that?
personally, i don't understand "evoltution" and it doesn't matter to me to talk about it, as with you, it seems
i accept it as a mystery which i fail to comprehend; not as a scientific "theory" which i fail to comprehend, if you will...
i agree with you that time is quite a thought-provoking subject
i have the speed of the electron in my body, informed by of DNA molecules which contail ancient codes about my people's people-people [just like mom&dad = required]; as you allude if i undertand your drift, who the hell could tell wtf is going on from here?
we can approach these things in different ways, from different parts of ourselves, perhaps, over time; some memories and perceptions seem quite profound at times...
So-called "Evolution" is a quack religion, a neo- quasi religion for commies, leftists, trendy collectivists and other statists who have abandonded their Christian heritage, or who are not Christian to begin with, and are happy to join a phoney cult which is extinguishing Christianity.
I instantly doubt the sincerity of any RP "fan" who links Paul's Strong CHRISTIAN Libertarian aura/fandom with belief in stupid neo anti-religion/joke/science built on hoaxes "Evolution."
Addressing Falun Gong
Are you familiar with the term whackadoo??
Look in the mirror...
Good grief!!
Are you paid to scare people away from Ron Paul? Or do you just do this as some kind of misguided "favour" (for god knows whom)?
Slewie...
Claiming that because you do not understand something does not preclude from being understood by others...
If anything, you should be agnostic and simply shutup when these things are discussed, or simply state, I do not know...
as i see it, flak, nobody "knows" in a way that can be "proven"
again, the "theory" can be accepted and used; explored and investigated
however, that will not prevent millions of peeps from pretending they understand something of which a college freshman said to me: "everybody knows this is true!"
i was trying to understand someone else's (escape_claws') comment, which was not entirely clear to me
did you see what he (not i) put up there in dialogue w/ slewie, NOT you, flak
thank you for the "advice" on what slewie "should" do
perhaps you can hear your own conditioned values more clearly after taking that dump!
the fact that i admit that this is deeply incomprehensible to me, logically, does not mean i can't perceive when somebody is pretending to understand the processes so completely (and shallowly) that s/he is obviously just a highly conditioned "science" puppet, btw
others have also been trained in "method and approach" not dogma and doctrine
you seem to be accustomed to being regarded as some sort of an "authority"
krugman has a similar elevation by some who apparently think he really knows his stuff too!
academics are pretty insecure, at times,imo
so much is riding on how others "accept them" that much of their "science" is like economics, just some 'voodoo gobbledy-gook'
but voodoo is not "nothing"; neither is it, necessarily, false; it depends on what people "believe"
when an FBI agent takes the stand he swears to tell the truth; but if he said wht his guys did in the case, the perp would walk free
so, he lies. we saw it in the oj case time after time with the "local" LAPD. the dreamTeam just set em up and knocked em down like bowling pins! the detectives, the evidence techs, the statistician were all caught telling lies to the jury, and the jury was not too happy with these fuking asswipes, either!
nuclear "safety" is presented "scientifically"? no, we have the "scientists" lying! for 1/2 a century and then some! you see, some of the "peer review" is a business to make money by publishing pure fuking nonsense. not all, flak, SOME
when the scientific bases of the "business of global warming" were being developed, the scientists made up data so their "theory" could become a "business model", it seemed to slewie. remember?
so i question "authority" for quite a long time now, and i would suggest you perhaps might benefit from being a bit less "accepting" of bloviating blowhards theorizing4dollars while the flashbulbs are going off in their "scientific" faces
but, thank you for the advice!
Slewie...
you are welcome for the advice.. but I must take issue with this nugget of yours
No, I do not remember...could you refresh me on what data was fabricated by whom?
spot on, slewie
I use to remember to the youngsters I follow that there is no such thing as science - there is only the scientific method.
a scientist, (i.e. someone interested in what we don't know) sets up a theory and immediately starts to look for ways to disprove this theory, with experiments that can be replicated, i.e. using the scientific method.
As long as any theory is not disproven, it can be used, cautiously, as a working tool for the next big question. and still we know that any theory might be displaced by a newer, better one, with a different angle
-----
having said that, evolution is a powerful and until now successful and usable theory that has withstood all attempts at disproving it - although in part because some major experiments that would really be needed cannot be attempted due to the time frame
the whole realm of theology is also a bit out of reach for the scientific method since it's still too difficult to fasten the divine to a workbench for dissection and particle bombardment - try to pin down angels, they notoriously dance on the pin's head
and still, the debate in the US about evolution is quite unique and in many ways a political one, packed into a unique cultural war - we foreigners mostly just watch in amazement...
this is very kind of you ghordie
i don't sense that you would insist on "upside-down" mataphysics
theology is done from within the church and requires the "standpoint of faith"; metaphysics is not exactly faith-sterile, imo, but can be [and should be ?] approached from any "set" of beliefs, which may then be, somehow, transcended
or something L0L!!!
"belief in belief" is an intellectual plague upon the planet, imo
Fixed it.
There's no believing in something that's actual, belief is then redundant, a bogus habit.
Years ago I came to a view that belief is an extreme symptom of profound psychological desperation.
Believers are deperados, and the desperate can do some nutty stuff to hold on to a mental habit.
It's this terrible inner desperation they have to deal with, not just the belief responses to it.
I eventually realised its not wise to vocalise a Truth to people who aren't ready for it yet.
This would explain your command of scientific matters...
Seriously Flak, how old are you?
You prattle on like a 22 year old with a bad case of zits and chip on the shoulder.
Go get laid you fucking loser.
Is that the best you got?? A couple of lame ad hominems...
You are a clown, clearly incapable of rationalism...
Your have demonstrated a complete lack of scientific knowledge or insight and yet you have strong opinions on scientific matters...
You are likely too ignorant to realize how ignorant you are....
Now run along... or surprise us with some actual deep thought...
my dear friend!
element's comment @ 6: 36 is, again, to my previous day's 22:15
he agrees with something i tried to formulate here and you seem to just want to scratch his eyes out!
was he really being "clearly incapable of rationalism"?
he wasn't trying to "surpise w/ a deep thought" flak! he was trying to communicate w/ slewie!
well, you sure taught him a lesson, here! Hahahaha!
i liked what he said, and how he said it, myself
and i don't find his IDEAS threatening! L0L!!! i'm so styooopid, i don't even feel threated by iran!
Well.. maybe you two should go off alone somewhere if you do not want people to interject....it is a public forum afterall....
Well flak, the one thing you have persistently proven with utmost proficiency I might add, is that you're a complete and utter dickhead regarding any matter, and have your head lost in the reassuring falsehoods of puritanical rationalism, pretending to yourself you really know stuff via that process. And you're so dull of actual capacity you probably think that is the crowning achievement of your development as a human being. Well, you're welcome to it, I saw through it many years ago and will never drink that scientific 'rationalist' koolaide drivel ever again. BTW, it's what's making you such a persistently childish dickhead. Now go read a scientific american and surf this month's wave of dismal theoretical trivia and pointy-headed cleverness Dexter.
Oooooh...my, someone seems very angry... Whats the matter, you don't like being exposed as the bullshit artist that you are?
My crowning achievement is raising two children that would see through your bullshit and intellectual bankruptcy as easily as I do...And one of them is 14 years old...
Frankly it's amazing anyone can stand to be around you, including yourself.
Troll away dickhead.
@ falun
A Great Stupidity requires a Great Wisdom to balance it
the rest of the world has gone ahead
we have been left behind
individual survival is in doubt
A Great Darkness requires A Great Lightness to balance it
laughter might work om
I don't think this is an example of a great stroke of wisdom on Ron's part, Ron is just following the game plan of the Constitution and explaining it using common sense. I hope his wisdom will show when he announces his break from the republican party and takes his independant fight to the people. Right now, he's got four opponents running against him if you include the prez. After the republican convention, he'll be down to two, with the best chance ever of winning and with plenty of time to hammer Mitt the suit and Oblabber into the ground. I'm confident Ron is going to make the wise choice, because we are totally fucked if he doesn't...and he knows it himself.
We don't need no common sense, critical thinking or logic here. I'm blood, oil and fiat thirsty.
spiral_eyes, Yes, of course we can see that NATO wants to disarm nations and once they are helpless, then they attack. Libya was the perfect example. NATO would be in Syria already had not Russia sent warships and merchant vessels with arms shipments. In a world where NATO demands nations not arm themselves and then uses their helpless position to launch attacks can't help but prompt a country like Iran to seek nuclear weapons. Russia itself only weathered the collapse of the Soviet Union without a NATO invasion because even the rump of the old USSR had nuclear weapons. And even today Russia's offical defense policy is a "first use of nuclear weapons is reserved to the Russian state to counter any force entering Russian territory that convential Russian forces can not defeat". In short they have promised to detonate nuclear weapons over any outside force entering onto Russian territory.
Thus the bombs would go off inside Russia and no one could accuse them of attacking anyone, purely self defense and the bad consequences would mostly be on Russian soil. I expect Iran would aim for a similar defense policy backed by the same doctrine.
Ah yes, our good old friend Putin, never met a murdering dictator he did not like as long as it was a thorn in the side of the EU and America. But, I am terribly interested in your position that NATO was poised to invade Russia when the Soviet government fell.
This ought to be interesting.
I don't own a shotgun to go to my neighbor's house to steal his silverware.
I do realize if I fire it indoors, my walls and hearing will be adversely affected.
However, I will use it to defend me and mine from unknown intruders, whether they be armed or not.
It isn't the sanctions. It's the fact that we are bombing a significant number of Arab countries, and call Iran evil.
Of course the establishment doesn't want Paul as president. There is too much money to be made in war.
We have left North Korea alone since July 1953. And only last week they announced a moritorium on all nuclear activities including enrichment and a desire to return to the six party talks instituted by Bill Clinton and dumped by George BushCo his second week in office. Ummmmm, please though, don't let little old facts get in the way.
Don't count your chickens until they've hatched, I'm sure the US will come up with numerous ways to fuck it up and disenfranchise them again.
And let's face it, DPRK is the most propaganda mind-fucked country on earth today ... with the exception of the USSA ... so don't get your hopes up.
I know element, and I think they are as unstable as the isotopes they are playing with, but the fact is isolation and raw hunger has worn them down, this is a very positive step. I also believe China has grown weary of their hard line communist (fascist dictatorship in reality) provocations to the west. There was a time when China wanted to provoke the west, now it is too fat and happily capitalistic to let some bumbling pot head familial dynasty fuck it up for them on the Korean peninsula. I think they have served notice on the Il family to get it's shit together and find a way to integrate the Koreas or simply face removal by the Chinese.
I mean, was not Dong Wan on his way home from a "summit meeting" in Beijing when he died on the train en rout? I think he got a talking to by his Chinese masters and told if he does not go along he will never see Pyongyang again. But of course drugs and alcohol had wasted him, he was like the Elvis of North Korea. Two weeks after that child inherited North Korea the government wants to return to the 6 party talks. I believe in coincidences to the point they happen, rare and minor, this was an order from the top.
You're a good man, Ron Paul.
Jon Stewart the other day, instead of talking about Paul's diplomacy, said Paul has never found a suit that fits, so let's point out to the babbling Jon Stewart that not only is Paul wearing a finely tailored suit, but the sweater is very in too.
Suck it Stewart.
At least he talks about Ron Paul, which is more than can be said about almost any other "news" source.
If the King's Court was to burn down I would say let the Jestor burn with it.
The problem is that Paul is not only fighting an uphill battle with the stablishment, banksters and all, but also the mighty military industrial complex.
He may however, end up with enough delegates to be considered a true contender since he is the only one beating O'Bummer on a tete-a-tete.
as i tried to pint out when those "facts" were presented here, the margin of error of +/- 3% makes such a statement suspect, or more accurrately: meaningless
with that margin, there are "dead heats" all over the place from that recent poll
maybe next week, but thank you for pretending it already happened, just like the "headilne" said!
all the 'parade enthusiasts' think you're grrrreat, btw...
You really don't get the sarcasm behind what Stewart said? only one without a very expensive, extremely tailored suit perhaps? Made of cloth that doesn't reflect the light like real fabrics might. Maybe, "you can tell the suit isn't empty"
"Oh, and while the king was looking down,
The jester stole his thorny crown.
The courtroom was adjourned;
No verdict was returned.
And while lennon read a book of marx,
The quartet practiced in the park,
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U
He is after all a comedian.
And he may be allowed a different opinion from time to time.
Stewart is the ONLY one who talks about how Paul has been marginalized by the media. He's the ONLY one who talks about Paul's foreign policy opinions.
Why don't you direct your anger at people who deserve it, like the rest of the MSM.
When someone paints a picture they have to have the right colors and the right shapes. One without the other creates a lack of expresion. Just because Stewart gives Paul some coverage by no means means he is doing Paul's cause justice. He refers to Paul as an unelectable old man just as often as anyone, even if he points out that the MSM (which he is a part of) isn't covering him.
And, and by making light of it, it makes it less of a big deal. Instead of his liberal viewers believing in justice, they laugh that no one is covering Paul.
Learn to mind the gaps, my friend.
Of course Stewart makes light of Paul. HE'S A COMEDIAN! His first obligation is to be funny.
What's more, he makes light of EVERYONE! That's his job.
As for referring to him as unelectable, he only does that when he makes fun of what the MSM says about him.
The simple fact that a comedian is doing a better job of covering Paul is an indictment of the MSM.
I don't like Stewart, you do, who fucking cares.
I don't like Stewart either, but we all ought to fucking care.
It is ironic in the extreme that the only media talking head giving Ron Paul, the only truly conservative choice among the Republican contenters, the attention he deserves and a venue to air out his platform, is a foul-mouthed left-leaning Jewish comedian on Comedy Central! And while Stewart does crack jokes on Paul ("You're too consistent; you need to flip-flop more."), the jokes are all of the laughing-with-you variety, rather than the laughing-at-you type Stewart fails to spare his other targets. His coverage of Paul has been - at least to my observation - entirely positive.
This observation should give pause to all the Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/O'Reilly listeners who fancy themselves to be conservative.
Jon Stewart and John Oliver discuss Rep candidates and the only one they give props to is Ron Paul.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-29-2012/indecision-2012---the-long--winding--bumpy-ass-road-to-the-white-house---gop-response?xrs=playershare_twitter
Starts at 3:29 mark
John Olver is a tool of his political party. The sky would fall before Olver ever said anything
that wasn't scripted. How do I know, you say? From personal experience.
Actually, best to watch all of it (except the commercial!) so that you get things in proper context, which, I'd argue, actually enhances the favorable props to Paul.
I do wish Ron Paul would spend more than $50 on his suits, though, so that we wouldn't be having this conversation.
@ Mr Lennon
Dear sir, Only as an independent would I consider voting for Ron Paul.
Only as an independent can he be trusted.
Not personal, but rather an observation of a history that has never had an independent
or am I wrong
I can't remember so many things
As an independent, if he gained no more votes than did the only peace candidate---what was his name
We could all return home
Heads hung in shame
But at least we would know that he was the right man om
The "other" medias are so scared to talk about RP, because they are aware of the position this gentleman WILL have.
I think that "instructed" is the word, not "scared."
If you don't say and do as your master says he'll take away your food bow.
i wanna have his baby
It is shameful that the political responsibility for telling 300+ million people the truth rests solely on the shoulders of a thin 76 year old man.
+1. Wish I could have clicked it another 10 or 15 times.
It is shameful.
Where are the men in America?
Bought off or muzzled....
Remember 'Love it or leave it!'?
Ron Paul is a good American man. He seeks what is best for America. Thus he is an enemy of the Israel lobby, Mr. Paul needs to be very careful about his health and safety.
If it looked like he would win the presidency, expect a JFK to be pulled on him.
Somehow I don't think the Israel lobby is his greatest threat. It is the entire One World Totalitarian Government that is his enemy and the movers and shakers that relentlessly push for it.
Godbless-his-everyaction-may-the-angles-look-down-on-you-Ron-1
"Godbless-his-everyaction-may-the-angles-look-down-on-you-Ron-1"
Not too sure how the 'angles' are playing out, but he sure could use some angels on his side! ;-)
you missed the chick that was sitting behind him ;-)
We are very lucky to have men such as Paul. He's probably one of the greatest men to ever run for President of the US. We had an historic opportunity to put this man in office, but we succumbed to corruption and fear. We have fallen ill from the siren song and once more wasted a chance to right this ship and steer away from the ruinous reef that awaits us.
Yeah... sanctions, not to mention 60 years of the West meddling in their affairs...
60 years???
I think Xerxes would scoff at that timeframe...
Bad example.... Xerxes was meddling in the west, so to speak....
And I think you meant Darius...
I'll go along with that...
The macro point is the same though...
Actually, a century is more accurate when you consider how the region was formed after WWI.
And, the people of the region have very, very long memories and have not forgotten the Crusades either.
Fair enough... I took the real meddling to begin with the CIA-MI6 support for the coup of Mossaddegh...
There was also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
The Crusades the Crusades, it is the West's fault.....Cow Manure....
So before the Crusades the arabs were just sitten around minding their own business and these blood thirsty Crusaders came in lopping off heads....
I am so tired of people trying to make apologise or be sensitive for something my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather might or might not have done....
Two wrong will never make it right. At what point do we seek a mean reversion to a position of friendship and free trade with all...entangling alliances with none...for everything else, there's the Second Amendment solution?
As opposed to shoot first, shoot some more, shoot to make sure, then ask questions of anybody left alive.
Two wrong will never make it right
3 rights still do make a LEFT though...
Yeah (junker)... 3 rights DON'T, in fact, make a left... my bad...
Prior to the crusades, Islam spread over north Africa, the Middle East, and southwest Asia by kindly muslims going door to door preaching.
haha
You seem to leave out the fact that were it not for Charles Martel stopping Islam at Tours, France in 732 all of Europe would be covered with mosques rather than Cathedrals. Milestones
Don't forget Vlad the Impaler in Transylvania.
There is still a minaret standing in Eger.
The town wants to rent it out for $50K a year. Eger looks like a great place to visit. Lots of early architecture with no traffic in the historic center.
That is right.
Somehow, the northern crusades are quite left out.
As far as it is known, Islam spred the way it spred.
That is another thing to claim when you speak about the baltic countries, their religion and the northern crusades they had to suffer at the hands of the Germans.
"all of Europe would be covered with mosques rather than Cathedrals"
Gonna call BS on this one.
This is the same "commies are going to take over the world" crap. And, of course, it was also "the Nazis are going to take over the world" crap. I'll also call BS on the notion that the NWO will take over the world.
Not saying that there can't be brief takeovers, but there will NEVER be any unified anything covering the entire earth, for ANY significant length of time, if EVER. I make this statement based on how NATURE works, that it only succeeds ("perpetuates") via DIVERSITY. I also believe that most folks here GET IT that centralization DOESN'T work. BAD SYSTEMS FAIL!
The notion of the world being taken over by a given race or creed is the stuff that POWER loves to tout in order to maintain itself (at the expense of the common person [who is gullible enough to continue this nonsense that there HAS to be "leaders").
@Seer
Thank you for saying it!
Even a species that denies it is an 'animal' is still a part of the universe.
No one ever got out of the universe om