August 19, 2004

We Got Us A Troll

One of the things I enjoy doing with trolls is editing their comments. It drives them crazy. Unfortunately, I shouldn't have edited the first three comments of my latest troll, some fuckwit who calls himself MeowMix, which one of my readers pointed out is the first stage of catshit. Addison told me that I should have left his original comments stand because he, Addison (the other one), and xCavTrooper bitchslapped him much better than I could ever hope to. Hey Addison, how would you like to write a post a week for this site? The offer is also open to Addison (the other one) and xCavTrooper. They all know how to debate lucidly and use facts to back up their arguments. I will post at the end of this entry three excellent comments.

Facts. They are annoying little things aren't they? That's why liberals usually lose arguments and have to resort to name calling when facts are involved. Like the talking point about how many jobs have been lost during the Bush administration. I addressed it in an earlier post by going to the Department of Labor's web site and actually looking at the statistics. Addison did also and the links will be posted later in this post. With the internet and Google it's amazing all the neat stuff you can find out. It's a shame the lamestrem media is too lazy or too biased to do that.

Blarney Gumball was an annoying troll, but at least he posted links, albeit bullshit ones, to back up his talking points. Here is a typical unedited entry from MeowMix.

Guess you guys like a president that was never anything in school, went a-wol for a year, got a score of 25 on his aptitude test...the government spent 1 million dollars training him how to fly a jet, goes on vacation 30 times a year, puts the national deficite at an all time high, then is booed by the nations african-americans, cheated his way into office by hiding votes for gore, (if you want I'll post a link in Flordia that shows 35,000 votes for gore hidden in a warehouse) the first president ever to be booed with protestors when he took his walk down the street, etc etc etc,

But i know you people will just eventually end up making this post into "I
like masturbating to john kerry" because you cant handle the facts.... oh well.

And why is it so important to put my real name? Are you going to find out who i
am and egg my house? Whatever

Didja notice he throws out all the talking points that he probably got from the Moveon.org website? We have gone over this shit time and time again. He didn't cut and paste this time because he misspells words (deficite instead of deficit) and seems to have no conception of capitalization or rational sentence structure. Obviously a product of a gummint school and a poor one at that. Probably has a job flipping burgers somewhere (if he even has a job), lives at home, and uses his parents' computer. Then he says we can't handle facts and doesn't present any. He promises to post a link for 35,000 missing votes rather than posting the link. And dude, if you are proud of what you write and your positions, be like Addison, Addison (the other one) and Robin Palm (He and I disagree but he is confident enough in his positions that he posts his real name and email address) and post your real name. You don't because you are a troll.

Had I left his other three posts intact you would see just how incredibly stupid this dipshit is, and I'm not engaging in an ad hominem attack here, I'm just stating a fact. Let his own words bear witness.

Yeah, I'm real lazy tonight and I want to answer a comment by Robin so I just want to present three comments from yesterday's post.

This was a comment by xCavTrooper who must have obtained a copy of the How to Be a Troll Handbook.

MeowMix, Your other "points" have been refuted time and time again. Educational spending, enviromental impact, jobs lost, etc... We have already spent quite a bit of time refuting trolls who seem to always follow the same pattern:

1) Wake up, decide that their DU handbook and massive ego are enough to convince the evil right-wingers of the error of their ways

2) Locate GOC's site, skim last topic

3) State latest leftist talking points as 'facts', fail to follow up with sources or numbers.

4) Attack rebuttals of leftist insane points by a) insulting other posters b) arguing over inane details (i.e. spelling), c) claiming all contrary evidence is fabricated by neocon conspiracy/Bushitler/Karl Rove/Haliburton/aliens d) ignoring rebuttal and sliding to different point, acting if the rebuttal is ignored, it will somehow go away and not 'count'.

5) Argument from troll eventually reduced to "uh-uh - i'm right, and no matter what you say I must be right"

6) Normal visitors realize that troll has moved from amusing to pityable to painful. Silence from normal posters for moment. GOC takes troll out and (electronically) whacks troll in back of head with Banstick.

If you want to be taken seriously, first, read the FAQ for the site. Then, bring up actual facts and attributations with your claims. Treat everyone else with respect, and you will also be respected. Respond to the rebuttals of your points with more facts and polite arguments.

Conversely, act like a spoiled child and we will laugh and poke fun at you.

And now, we have Addison who refutes all of his talking points with facts.

Fine. I thought it was self-evident that you are a troll by the seemingly breathless and exasperated run-on sentence non-period-using style of your post.

I'll elaborate:

1) The President cut $200 million from his own No Child Left Behind Act

That is not true. The $200 million was from a program called "Impact Aid", not No Child Left Behind. Impact Aid falls under military housing and facilities. It seems odd given the 2004 budget had the following in it:


  1. Military Personnel - $98.6 billion (6 percent increase)

  2. Operations & Maintenance - $117.0 billion (3 percent increase)

  3. Military Construction - $5.0 billion (21 percent decrease)

  4. Housing - $4.0 billion (5 percent decrease)

It looks more like disinformation than an actual event (looked through seven pages of Google results and found no links to pages other than ones simply asserting this as though it were fact). I am looking at an article by a "Ron Edmonds" that states that "military family housing and medical facilities" funding was cut by $1.5 billion. However, when I look at the 2004 bill highlights (link), it points out pay raises from 2 - 6.25%, a reduction in out-of-pocket expensives for private housing from 3.5 - 7.5% and the above noted increases in spending in exactly the places where there were supposedly cuts. The 2005 bill (link) gets an additional $200 million in family housing and $400 million more in family housing construction.

When searching for "military family housing" + "1.5 billion", the links all go to self-referential Leftwing sites (link) with no external links to an actual government report or bill. The story exists within a microcosm of the political spectrum (the fringe Left) but damned if I could find a link to reality where the story was true. What it looks like is the reduction was something perhaps proposed that never went into affect--and even then, had nothing to do with No Child Left Behind. If it the $1.5 billion cut did happen, it looks as though it was quickly remedied.

What I did find concerning education was:


  1. A GAO study from May 2003 found that Congress is providing more than enough money for states to design and implement the statewide achievement tests required under No Child Left Behind. The report also shows education reform opponents are exaggerating estimates of NCLB's state testing costs by as much as $5.1 billion between fiscal years 2002 and 2008. (link)

  2. 2000 Education Spending: $38,447,366,000
    2004 Education Spending: $63,270,657,000 (link)

Education seems well funded. I would not criticize an increase in spending of 64.6% in four years if federal undercutting of education is your concern.

2) The Bush Administration's regressive environmental policies have lowered cleanliness standards for our air and water.

A link would be helpful to an EPA report or the like.

Went over to the EPA's site and found the "Draft Report on the Environment" (link) and found reports, under the listings "Cleaner Air, Purer Water, Better Protected Land, Human Health, and Ecological Condition" that everything is on the, shall we say, up and up. Some of their data only goes to 2002 but I have a suspicion that were the environment in the midst of a downturn, they might have chosen to mention it on their--what was your term?--"main page". Looking through six months of news headlines (link) did not show anything noteworthy (e.g., "Environment doomed, minorities and women hit hardest).

3) The Bush Administration's Patriot Act threatens our constitutional rights and civil liberties.

An example would be nice. Platitudes are not arguments. First, supply an example of exactly where constitutional rights and civil liberties are "threatened" and an example of their being violated. I have a sneaking suspicion that not one case exists, as I have yet to see one (and I've been looking) in two years. The DoJ even has a Question and Answer section that addresses such hysteria (link)

4) Bush's Tax Cuts only benefit the rich

They benefit anyone who pays income taxes, as they went to everyone who paid income taxes. That the rich are able to retain a larger quantitative amount of money than you or I is immaterial, as they put significantly more money in, as they earn more. I am in the next to lowest income tax bracket and I noticed the tax cut. I'm not rich but I benefitted, ergo your argument is bunk. I know people who opened IRA accounts with their tax refund and they make in the mid-$50,000; they are, by few people's definition, rich. Yet, oddly enough, they benefitted from the tax cut.

5) ...3.3 million jobs (93,000 in August of 2003 alone) have been lost since Bush took office...

The employment in December of 2000 was 135,836,000 (link). In February 2004, it was 138,301,000 (link). One thing that stands as odd is that the talking point now is "number of jobs", not unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is currently 5.5% (link) and was 5.6% when Bill Clinton began campaigning for his second term--CNN noted that the unemployment rate was dropping from an "already-low 5.6%". As a point of interest, South Korea has an unemployment rate in the threes (link). Interesting but beside the point.

6) Bush is underfunding homeland security.

Who are you to say? How can you make that determination? Homeland security funding goes as such:


  1. 2001: $0 (did not exist)

  2. 2002: $19.5 Billion

  3. 2003: $33.5 Billion + $6.71 Billion in supplemental funding

  4. 2004: $36.2 billion (link)

  5. 2005: $40.2 billion (link)

Homeland Security funding has increased 106% since its creation. Underfunded?

This is why I called you a troll. You provide innuendo, falsehood, and a laundry list that you copied and pasted from somewhere, but provide no facts, as though the words themselves will make reality as such. And don't try to say you wrote it because no one who writes without punctuation marks takes the time to capitalize words that mark the beginning of sentences. It looks like a list copied from an ordered list and pasted, as the beginning of one comment butts against the end of the previous.

I have thusly appended my "useless comment" with fact, unlike your posts that are all completely useless.

I gotta quit looking at my site at work and let the smart people take care of the trolls. Seriously, Don't you wish Addison would start his own blog?

I just gotta post what Addison (the other one) posted since he had an excellent take on tax cuts.

Meowmix: "Bush Administration Patriot Act?" (Actually, it would be PATRIOT act).

This shows why the "left" can't be allowed back into government - they don't understand how it works, and don't care.

There are several problems with the "PATRIOT" slanders you're committing. One, you did not detail what parts were a problem (I've got a sneaking suspicion you don't actually know what they are, or if they're part of the act or not). Two, it's hardly the Bush administration's. It was passed by the US House and Senate.

Holy shit! Facts No fair!

98-1-1. That looks pretty damn "bipartisan" to me.
Well, at least Kerry didn't.. Oh. Wait. Well, Edwards.. Oops. Well, surely Clinton...
YEAS: 98
Clinton (D-NY)
Edwards (D-NC)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)

But as usual (for trolls), you're using the "PATRIOT" act as a ad-hom. With specificity, _what_ is wrong with it? (if you want to escape the appellation of "troll")

"Bush's Tax Cuts only benefit the rich. Bush claimed that his tax cut would “reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.” He failed to mention that this “relief” program would put half of the tax cut's dividends into the hands of our nation's wealthiest 5%, while 8.1 million citizens in the bottom half of the income bracket receive approximately $300 a year,"

Well, it's normal for trolls here to not really make sense, so I'll attempt to figure out what you mean. As for the tax cuts - I certainly noticed them. I don't even own a house. Nor am I that "rich". (Hint: the _really_ rich? They don't pay taxes. They can afford $100k for a guy to make sure their tax bill is close to nothing).

A large part of your problem is you want something to be true, so you're going to make it true in your head.

If we have a tax system set up. Denny pays $1 in taxes. CavTrooper pays $2 in taxes, addison pays $6 in taxes, and I pay $10 in taxes. We have a "tax cut" and reduce taxes by 1/2. Who gets the most "benefit?" Well, I do - I save $5! Denny only saves $.50! What injustice! I'm getting "more" of the "cut" (actually, the government is _taking less_. When you talk about "giving" cuts in government seizures, you give yourself away)

Now, let's set it up similar to how we have taxes. If you make under a certain amount, you don't pay taxes... Now, Denny and Cav trooper are not paying *any* taxes. But when we get the tax cut - they don't "get anything" out of it (actually, they'd probably get tax credits, thus MAKE MONEY, but that's a longer issue). So I "get" $5! And Denny gets $0. That's so unfair, right? Denny "gets" nothing and I "get" $5! That's exactly what the "tax cut" did.

50% of the "wage earners" pay 96.03% of federal income tax. That's right. 50% is paying for almost everybody else.

Omigawd! More facts!
"The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.)"

And I won't even bother pointing out the BS inherent in "The Bush Administration's regressive environmental policies have lowered cleanliness standards for our air and water". Yeah. arsenic. Now you only have to have a fraction of the amount that's harmless, as opposed to even less of a fraction, which would have bankrupted small towns and municipalities nationwide. But that's right. you like paying taxes. Want to just send me some money? Same thing, right?

Do I have good commenters or what?

Posted by denny at August 19, 2004 09:05 PM  Category: Fun With Trolls
Comments

1. It appears that the Bush Administration has consistently misled the American public about Iraq, most significantly regarding Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his ties to al Queda and Osama bin Laden. More recently, the failure of Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to address abuse of Iraqi detainees has generated international outrage, threatening to further destablize the region and prolong fighting.
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record

2. The Bush Administration's regressive environmental policies have lowered cleanliness standards for our air and water while allowing utility companies (many of whom are Bush campaign contributors) to profit off of the weakened regulations. In 2002, the head of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement resigned, complaining that the agency was “fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce." (CNN, Aug. 22, 2002)
The Bush Record on the Environment for 2004:
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp

3. Bush is underfunding education. The President cut $200 million from his own No Child Left Behind Act, eliminating crucial educational programs for lower income children and cutting professional training for more than 20,000 teachers. Flawed from its very foundation, No Child Left Behind is based on then-Governor Bush's late-‘90s “Texas Miracle,”—a program of standardized testing designed to increase performance and reduce dropout rates--now recognized as a scandalous failure.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0338/schanberg.php

4. The Bush Administration's Patriot Act threatens our constitutional rights and civil liberties. Passed by a post 9/11 Congress, the Patriot act expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret searches, and engage various forms of surveillance, including internet monitoring and wiretapping. It gives the FBI access to American citizens' highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records without notification or permission, and allows them to investigate individuals without probable cause of a crime. Finally, it permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and held indefinitely in six month increments without meaningful judicial review.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

5. Bush's Tax Cuts only benefit the rich. Bush claimed that his tax cut would “reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.” He failed to mention that this “relief” program would put half of the tax cut's dividends into the hands of our nation's wealthiest 5%, while 8.1 million citizens in the bottom half of the income bracket receive approximately $300 a year. Reducing tax revenues while doubling the growth rate of federal spending has caused the federal budget deficit to balloon to a projected $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm

6. 3.3 million jobs (93,000 in August of 2003 alone) have been lost since Bush took office--more than the last 11 Presidents combined. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2001-August 2003) Bush is likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to show a net loss of jobs at the end of his first term. Meanwhile, huge corporations are paying fewer taxes than ever:
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/jobs/jobcrisis.cfm

7. Bush is underfunding homeland security. While energetic in waging war abroad, the Bush administration has been oddly lethargic in fortifying our defenses at home. Domestic security agencies have been neglected. Police and firefighters have been denied essential resources, and muddled public strategy has only spread alarm and confusion.
http://www.ppionline.org/

Also one more question, why did Bush order that anyone who tried to stop al queida to be arrested?

Anyways :/

Posted by: MeowMix on August 19, 2004 10:27 PM

I'm starting to think that MeowMix is actually John Kerry. God save us all.
Regards,

Posted by: Matt Ashby on August 19, 2004 10:38 PM

ahahahah, thanks that actually made me laugh :D

I'm not John Kerry, nor do i think he's the savior to america, i'm sorry if i caused any trouble here and i guess you guys opened my eyes to what bush is really all about... i cant vote yet unfortunately, but im sure my household is Kerry all the way.... hope its a good, clean, fair election and let the best man win :)

Posted by: MeowMix on August 19, 2004 10:48 PM

Please don't edit my post to anything absurd, i think everyone is entitled to their own opinion :)

Posted by: MeowMix on August 19, 2004 10:49 PM

"Please don't edit my post to anything absurd"

You're already there, man. What exactly did you learn here? How were your eyes opened? Did you read anything addison wrote? He certainly read and responded to everything you wrote. Good luck to you, young Jedi.

Posted by: Matt Ashby on August 19, 2004 10:55 PM

I don't have to edit your post. My commenters will bitch slap you to the Moon and back and I'm thankful you cannot vote.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on August 19, 2004 11:08 PM

"hope its a good, clean, fair election and let the best man win :)"

If Democrats are involved it won't be clean, fair, or good. Just ask all the dead guys and non-registered people who voted for the Gorebot.

Here

Just for the heck of it

here

Posted by: Deathknyte on August 19, 2004 11:26 PM

Eminem:

Well, at least you are linking source material. That's a step towards progress. Now to figure out if the sources are trustworthy.

For 1) let's discuss your belief that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Now, first, this would require one to deliberately ignore the Kurds who were gassed - after all, Iraq didn't have those weapons. And of course, there's that reactor that Israel never bombed.... And those weapons that Iraq _listed that they had_ during the '98 inspections. The ones that they never destroyed (which according to the ceasefire of '91 had to be destroyed under UN supervision and documented).

But let's take the first "lie" that you're documenting by Waxman.
----
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."
----

Did you notice that Wilson has admitted that Iraq was not only seeking Uranium _in_ Africa, but in _NIGERIA_?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20040719.shtml (sample google hit)
"The Senate Intelligence Committee report also refuted completely the charges by former diplomat Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration ignored his conclusion, based on several days in Niger, that Iraq had not sought to buy uranium in that country. Democrats and many in the press claimed that Wilson refuted the 16-word sentence Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, noting that British intelligence reported that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.

But British intelligence stands by that finding, and the committee noted that Wilson confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger, whose main exports are uranium and goats, and intelligence analysts concluded that his report added nothing else to their previous knowledge. "

So 1) is shown to be wrong. Just that alone - Iraq was trying to obtain Uranium, against the terms of the '91 cease fire. Right there, that evaporates the "WMD" argument. Don't you understand that? Much less the 500 tons of Anthrax that Iraq claimed in '98, that haven't been produced to be destroyed. Or the binary Sarin shell that blew all over the IED guys?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb thought to contain deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war."

This was confirmed. Additionally, it was a "binary" shell - which Iraq didn't have in '91, and didn't disclose in '98.

So we can agree 1) is *poof* in terms of arguments, right? If not, you've got to explain a lot more - how those disappeared weapons that were _admitted_ to, much less that we knew about never were found.

5) you've never addressed my other points - until you do that, I think my point still stands. Saying they only benefit the rich, without pointing how in what regard - remember, 49% of the wage earners are paying 4% of the tax.. Who do you consider "rich?" Someone, say, like Arianna Huffington?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-ariannatax14aug14,1,6551509.story?coll=la-home-leftrail

"TV commentator and author Arianna Huffington, who launched her campaign for governor with criticism of "fat cats" who fail to shoulder a fair share of taxes, paid no individual state income tax and just $771 in federal taxes during the last two years, her tax returns show."

How much did you pay last year? I paid a lot more than $771. Or $366, considering that's 2 years.

6) and 7) were already refuted by addison - you've not countered his arguments.

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on August 19, 2004 11:39 PM

YEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW!

Ride 'em! You cain't whip one a them thar trollies too hard, their hide's too thick to chap. So's their haids. They're wriggly devils, but mighty fun to take to rodeo! I dun rode me a few a them ornery varmints out west and figger I'll jes let y'all try and break this one. Y'all look t' be experienced hands. Careful now, though. He's a yung'un and there still might be a lil' hope fer 'im, wunst he grows a brain at the right end a his lil' spine. We might even be able t' teach 'im how t' vote!

Posted by: The Moose on August 19, 2004 11:43 PM

Heh. Trolls are fun. Had one once. He stayed for a grand total of 30 minutes.

One thing about your site. Every time I open it, my dialup connection box pops up (which is odd, because I'm obviously on the internet already. I use wi-fi here at the house, and whatever highspeed they've got at the dorms) That connection is for 'emergencies', and is only used when visiting the hospital. Is there anything in your site that would launch that? This (so far) is the only page that does that.

Posted by: MetallicaRat on August 19, 2004 11:48 PM

"... i cant vote yet unfortunately..."

"unfortunately" is one word, "thankfully" is another. Thank God you cannot vote. "yet", yes, for the moment. If Denny will start hawking my proposal for testing potential voters (literacy, civics, etc), perhaps we can nip this in the bud.

"... but im sure my household is Kerry all the way...."

I didnt realize Whoopi and Michael Moore had a kid. Go figure.

Posted by: Daniel on August 20, 2004 12:00 AM

Sorry for trying to get along with everyone =/

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 12:05 AM

Emienem:

Problem is, you seem to think that stating a case is all that it takes to "make" it. Not so.

Nor, does merely quoting something that says what you want it to say make you correct. You have to be able to argue the pluses, the minuses. You've chosen some particular stands that are factually wrong. Some that are arguable, but you've still taken them in a wrong fashion. For instance, your comments about the PATRIOT Act. We can discuss it, (Well, we could, if you knew what it was). The ACLU doesn't seem to, they've been rather hysterical about it, to the point of absurdity at times. I disagree with some parts of it.

But I also can point out the good things it did - the standards it put in place. Some of them didn't exist, or were different in differing areas - cell phone wiretapping, for instance.

Does this invalidate everything in the PATRIOT Act? One thing to note - the sections that the ACLU has been hyperventilating over - have never been used. Now, that's not to say that doesn't mean they won't be - but it means that they _haven't been_, there hasn't been some huge secret subjugation. (And if there was, would you really be daring to post in public about it? Ask Cuban dissidents how that works. Well, if you can get into their solitary confinement.)

You can argue, and learn something, or you can merely post talking points, and be a "dittohead". Merely repeating something, without understanding. You've been unable to discuss _anything_ that you've brought up, you realise?

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on August 20, 2004 12:29 AM

Oh. my. God. These are the exact same talking points from yesterday that are not true. This is what happens when education goes wrong.

I hang my head knowing that such foolishness exists.

The WMD argument? I cannot and I mean this, cannot, express how sad it makes me when people believe that the history of Saddam's WMD program begin the day George Bush called them into question. Never mind that every major Democrat politician, France, Germany, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Poland, and the UN itself are on record--before Bush was President--alerting the world to the threat he and his weapons posed.

Russia's Putin warned Bush that Iraq was preparing an attack. The British MI5 stand by their claim that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Niger, a country who officials admit Iraqi representatives contacted them to begin business dealings. Niger exports uranium, cattle, and, if I recall correctly, chick peas. Iraq was using back-channel methods to buy more peas...right.

Ties to terrorists... Al-Zaquari and Abu Abas were living in Iraq. The man who helped carry out the 1993 WTC bombing, Ramzi Yosef, was an Iraqi Intelligence Officer. Al-Asqua Martyrs brigade and Fatah suicide bombers' families were compensated $25,000 by Saddam Hussein. Again, I cry knowing people can be so impervious to fact.

No Child Left Behind is based on then-Governor Bush's late-‘90s “Texas Miracle,”—a program of standardized testing designed to increase performance and reduce dropout rates--now recognized as a scandalous failure

It hurts me that people can write such things and foolish children such as Denny's new guest gobble it up because they already believe the worst in Bush. They believe the falsehoods because they hate Bush.

The Texas Education Agency has a section devoted to Performance Reporting. That is, keeping statistics on student performance in various subjects.

They have statewide information on student performance for the following years:

  1. 1997 - 1998
  2. 1998 - 1999
  3. 1999 - 2000
  4. 2000 - 2001
  5. 2001 - 2002
The numbers provided represent students passing reading and mathematics (Grades 3-8 & 10), respectively, by year. There is a discrepancy in the 1998 figures between two charts; I chose the lower values, as not to appear an deferential epigone of the Texas school system.
  1. 1997 - 84.0% - 80.1%
  2. 1998 - 83.3% - 80.4%
  3. 1999 - 86.3% - 85.6%
  4. 2000 - 87.4% - 87.4%
  5. 2001 - 88.9% - 90.2%
  6. 2002 - 91.3% - 92.7%
For black kids specifically:
  1. 1997 - 73.2% - 64.1%
  2. 2002 - 86.7% - 86.5%

In six years Texas school systems improved students passing reading and mathematics tests by 7.3% and 12.6%. For blacks, the increase was 13.5% and 22.4%.

This "failure" does not seem to be true.

The only proper word is nonplused for what I feel knowing that public education and parents have failed this...child so badly.

When I asked if the person in question was four years old or not, I think I was closer than I thought. It is difficult, naturally, to tell the difference between a Leftist and a child, as they share so many similarities.

Posted by: addison on August 20, 2004 12:31 AM

Addison....Addison ( the other one )...XCavTrooper -

You guess REALLY outdid yourselves. Great job !!

MeowMix ( what the hell kind of v-name is that ? ) isn't old enough to vote but he's expert enough to present the issues. Whodathunkit ?

Posted by: Greg on August 20, 2004 12:53 AM

--"Bush Administration Patriot Act?" (Actually, it would be PATRIOT act). --

Well, if we REALLY wanted to get technical, Reno/Clinton's Patriot Act.

Posted by: Sandy P on August 20, 2004 12:57 AM

Hold on a minute...you guys presented facts and links to them...you do realize you're questioning the patriotism of everyone who doesn't like Bush, don't you ?

Pretty soon the Dummycrats will be calling on Denny to denounce your posts and pull them from his website.

Bet you didn't know Kerry served in Vietnam ?

Posted by: Greg on August 20, 2004 01:00 AM

Greg,

MeowMix isn't old enough to vote but he's expert enough to present the issues.

I will point you to the erudite Dennis Prager's two recent columns (1, 2) concerning the Democrat Party, children, and how the liberal seems to see little to no distinction between children and adults aside from their size.

Posted by: addison on August 20, 2004 01:08 AM

Already familiar with them. Thanks

Posted by: Greg on August 20, 2004 01:28 AM

Okey dokey.

Posted by: addison on August 20, 2004 01:28 AM

Sandy:

Very good point, I hadn't thought about in a while.

I've used that before, of course, the Bush bashers never believe that the PATRIOT act was sitting there from the previous administration, who we all know would never violate any civil liberties. Well, as long as we didn't found a church. Or try and escape from Cuba. (Elian's dad, not Elian). Or be a political opponent. IRS audits? FBI files in the bedroom?

Oops. There I go.. again.

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on August 20, 2004 01:39 AM

"Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, used the same "f-word" in a public interview in Rolling Stone magazine"

can someone please give me a link proving this is true?

And what's wrong with getting a 12-year old girl to speak at the Democratic convention, she was there to support Kerry or kids for kerry, not to insult the vice president :/

And she's simply admitting the truth, Dick Chenny really did use the F--- word :\ i don't see anything wrong with that..... it's not that democrats are scared, it's because there are more important issues out there other than focusing on a VP that said the f word :/

BTW I'm 14, although it doesn't really matter

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 01:43 AM

http://www.costofwar.com/

woohoo!!

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 01:49 AM

If No Child Left Behind is adequately funded, why did so many states legistlatures voice huge opposition to it? Virginia's Republican controlled House of Delagates voted 98-1 to be exempted from the law, states "it would cost millions of dollars virginia does not have"
Fox News
Opinion Piece on the VA desicion with many quotes

Seriously, if Virginia's House votes 98-1 against anything of President Bush's.... I would have to agree with them that "that damn law is ludicrous"


Using EPA stats to boast Bush's environmental record is taking Bush's own word for the problem. Bush appoints the head of the EPA. I could drag up some stats on this... but Howard Kurtz recently wrote a piece on Bush's (and every president's) tendency to make more drastic changes through the "alphabet soup" programs. EPA being among them. Thing is... Bush has made more drastic changes.
Kurtz
Generally speaking, the changes made in the agencies never really get any kind of news time. No one notices. Bush steadily is deregulating many government regulating agencies to the boon of businesses. There are plenty of anti bush environment books on our shelves for me to mention. RFK's book, and "Bush vs the Environment" come quickly to mind. Whether you believe the outside groups seeking to discredit the presidents policies... or the EPA who is appointed/paid by the president is up to you.

On WMD. The Chemical weapons Saddam used on the Kurds expired long before the 1st Gulf War. They weren't any good any more. I'm 'pretty' sure saddam got them from the U.S. to fight Iran with. As did Saddam get much of his military might from us as well.
The Sarin nerve agent could have easily been brought in by the countless hostiles that have been entering Iraq since the start of the war. To be certain that those were Saddam's weapons... seems a little off. Why didn't he use them?

Speaking of which, leading up to the war, the talk was the Iraq had WMD capable of an "immenent threat to the US" to include chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry, the assertion (true or not) that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium does not constitute an "imminent threat" in my book. Otherwise, we should have knocked out North Korea ages ago, and countless other countries.
Nuclear Weapons Development Planning Programmes, pieces of paper, do not pose a threat to the US.
Nor did Iraq have the ballistic technology to attack a target as far as the U.S.

The fact Saddam has used WMD in the 80's on the Kurds... is revelant to the belief of the misinformation by the CIA leading to the war. But... because we can't find WMD now... a large portion of the public thinks the reasons we went to war were unfounded....
That's why Tenet is gone now, folks.

Am I glad Saddam is gone? Yes.

Am I glad our boys are dying to keep that place together? No.

Honestly, if we really did this for the "good of the Iraqi people", why do we ignore other similar, if not worse situations around the world? Sudan, North Korea, the mess in Columbia. Etc.

I'll post more tomorrow. I feel incoherence sinking in.

Btw... don't randomly go insulting the site owner or his constituants, Meow. That's just dumb, much like shitting in your own bed. Don't call names, be sure to back your arguements, and reveal your true name, and prepared to be fisked like you've never been fisked before. If you stand the onslaught and are respectable... Denny might just only say he "disagrees" with you... instead of referring to you as human sludge. Thanks Denny.

Robin

Posted by: Robin Palm on August 20, 2004 02:10 AM
BTW I'm 14, although it doesn't really matter
Yes, it does matter. You are an unwise child. You have neither the range of knowledge nor the experience nor the logic skills to comprehend the information in front of you. This is not a put down or an insult--it just is. There is a reason children do not vote: You are it.

You think highly of yourself because, oh, gosh, I've got political views and I'm only 14 years old. Your views are a mile wide and a millimeter thick. A façade, a show, a ruse, a Potemkin village hiding a base of nothingness and ignorance. You know nothing beyond your links to discredited websites. You have no argument beyond, "You're all doody heads who are dumb and are going to vote for Bush". "I'm right; you're wrong, so there." You are the quintessential hard-headed child: stubborn, simplistic, ungrateful (for we have donned on you much information), and indefatigably persistent.

When you get older and, hopefully, wiser, you will understand why children's opinions on such matters are almost uniformly useless--I know my opinions were and I have a feeling others will agree theirs were, too. And note that you have made it quite clear by your inability to learn, inability to debate, inability to reason, and inability to admit error, my point better than I ever could.

At first, we laughed at you. Then it was just strange with the repetition and what not. Now, I pity you because you're a child trying to play adult and you haven't the foggiest notion of what you're doing.

Go do some algebra homework or something. It will serve you well when you grow up.

can someone please give me a link proving this is true?

The enigma of the day. For someone who spends all his time on the Internet, you are puzzlingly useless when it comes to using a search engine. It's called Google; it is your friend.

Posted by: addison on August 20, 2004 02:11 AM

Robin,

No need to curse. He's still a child, you know.

Posted by: addison on August 20, 2004 02:13 AM

Can you please show me where i insulted the owner of the site and his constituants please?

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 02:13 AM

"For someone who spends all his time on the Internet"

My view on you is mutual, thanks.

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 02:18 AM

"Using EPA stats to boast Bush's environmental record is taking Bush's own word for the problem. Bush appoints the head of the EPA"

This is a true statement. Looking at this regard, why is everyone all over Dubya for the "faulty intelligence". Who appointed Tenet head of the CIA, and why is nobody calling for his head ?

Posted by: Greg on August 20, 2004 02:18 AM

"You think highly of yourself because, oh, gosh, I've got political views and I'm only 14 years old."

Where are you getting these ideas, you haven't the slightest clue who I am, you know nothing about me, and have no background on me. Please don't make empty statements, sorry but I'm not an egotistical maniac. =/

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 02:20 AM

I guess you're right, Bush does nothing, it's his administration that's making all the mistakes...


P.S: 9/11 was plotted by the U.S government, I've got a bunch of links proving it, and yes they're reliable sources.

Btw. I think politics/ politicians are disgusting.

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 02:24 AM

There are lies............ damn lies.......... and then there are statistics.

Is Kerry the end-all-be-all Savior? Is he even competent? The answer is NO!

And now, aside from political preference & persuasion, with a stark awareness of what damage ego, will, and 'agenda-uber-alles' can un-wittingly cause, I offer the following:

Do YOU like it when someone supposedly-inferior to you DEMANDS/DICTATES that you act a certain way? Do you readily-rollover and docile-like just 'start LIKING it'?

If so, you give no credence to your own experience.

You came upon things with an initial idea; you held that idea in the face of adversity; you perhaps prevailed in your assumptions or maybe even changed your beliefs.

What matters here is that you applied your very-best faculties to questions & issues that were of value to you.

How then can you destroy the other who does but the same? Is it then just a question of "Will"?

A full & certain soul is confident and secure enough in itself that it need never attack, but is PATIENT while looking for every 'teachable-moment.'

And how many times have you actually 'learned' something when it was co-erced from you? Did you not learn the opposite of what was intended? Did you not figure out ways to sabotage "the prescribed course of action?"

You exercised your creativity, your uniqueness, your blessed-gift of Self!

How then can you destroy the other who does but the same?

But I submit that such is in reaction rather than response. Reaction is always in defense, while response demands thoughtful consideration of the other. Response goes further than merely squelching: response demands meeting an adversary WHERE THEY ARE and then laying a path of paving-stones to where YOU ARE.

Anything less is not only but bombast, but also belies the efficacy of the reactionary position.

In short, we should not try to level the OTHER's questions & stances to such a degree that it prevents us from coming to grips with our own.

Sorry to have gone-professorial, but I think we sometimes lose sight of the idea that there may be larger motives and forces at work than what we can ourselves percieve today.

It is with that in mind that I say that emotions are but fleeting while thought dare not approach the Master Architect.

I've burned out for today; sleep is ahead.

Posted by: Dan S on August 20, 2004 03:17 AM
My view on you is mutual, thanks.
Once again, a non-argument. I know, in contrast to you, how to use a search engine. That was the point. You made a non-argument argument that only makes you look more foolish to everyone reading. You essentially replied with "The penguin is one of the few birds that cannot fly."
9/11 was plotted by the U.S government...
Young, stupid, and insane. There is no further reason to even regard you as slightly above the intellect of a rock.

I hope I never come across your parents because they have done a horrible job and I pity that you suffer because of it.

Posted by: addison on August 20, 2004 07:31 AM

People can discreit links until the cows come home. addison writes long speels with numerous links desparately trying to proove why he doesnt want to pay tax and why bush waas right to attack a country wich hadn't attzacked first, then mr catfood counters with equal speel and equal links, which addison attacks.

this could last a very long time, but it all boils down too opinion. like it or no, opinion is used on, both sides. even with figures - one person will say a figure is too high, another person says its too low. so denny's ranting about the facts being on the side of the right is irrelibvant.

arrgh! I give up! nie4ther side listens, and both sides accuse the other sides of not listening! this is stupid.

Posted by: matthew g on August 20, 2004 09:02 AM

MeowMix - You started out your very first comment calling the site owner and his commenters stupid. I edited that comment like I usually do for any troll who starts off a post with an insult. And if you really think the gummint was responsible for 9/11 your tinfoil hat is on entirely too tight and has shut off blood flow to your brain. Time to get one in a larger size. I congralate your parents and the gummint school that you attend. The brainwashing has been a success.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on August 20, 2004 09:47 AM

Matthew:
"addison writes long speels with numerous links desparately trying to proove why he doesnt want to pay tax"

You keep repeating that mantra, it's not true. I don't mind paying some taxes, I want to pay for useful services. You don't understand the _concept_ of taxes. (Attacking church charity but accepting government subsidy as different). Taxes are something the government usually collects at the point of a bayonet. How much tax do you pay on your earnings?

"and why bush waas right to attack a country wich hadn't attzacked first"

Argued and put to bed. Actually, this was a continuance of Gulf War I, since Saddam never came into compliance with the cease fire. The question should be "Why did we wait this long to hold him accountable"? (Which I'd like you to answer. There was a cease-fire in place, Saddam never came into compliance, and openly flaunted his disregard. Since you're big on taxes and "social contracts" - explain why you don't support enforcing the social contract that was made?)

"then mr catfood counters with equal speel and equal links, which addison attacks."

But he didn't. He linked, without substance. Just that there was an assertation, that someone over here made. Such as the Waxman link - which starts off with a proven false accusation of lying against Bush. I can say "Matthew is a green-haired, left-handed, one-eyed female", and then addison can link to that - but that doesn't make it true. The question isn't the _link_, but what the link tells you, what you can find out about the _facts_ behind it.

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on August 20, 2004 10:15 AM

"9/11 was plotted by the U.S government..."

As peoply here knnow, I lean strongly towards the left. e.g, I have a strong belief in the wealthfare state and state-funded healthcare, for reasons I have previously gone into. I am anti-war and anti bush. yet the above statement goes far beond my greivences with dubya and into lunacy! bush is a halfwit, but even he would not have done such a thing. one may say that americas handlling of orrign affairs drove the terrrorists ti commit those acts - and I find this far more logical than for one to say "they hate freedom" - but to blame 9/11 entirelyy on the government borders on alien conspiracy theories.

Posted by: matthew g on August 20, 2004 10:18 AM

Robin:
"On WMD. The Chemical weapons Saddam used on the Kurds expired long before the 1st Gulf War. They weren't any good any more."

Really. So you wouldn't mind living next to one of those oft-protested 60's era Chemical Weapon depots?

I suspect that you would. That's inane. Utterly. Damn. Inane. "Uh, they were past their due date". Doesn't _matter_. He had them. He had MORE of them. His '98 declaration - which was demonstrably incomplete - listed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many. 500 tons of weaponized anthrax.

Robin. Please think about what you're saying. That 500 *tons* of weaponized anthrax - which _hasn't been discovered_ - that was admitted to - doesn't exist. Or did and vanished, but there's no problem.

That's the _definition_ of inanity. Right there. By itself. 500 tons of anthrax. He had more, likely. But Saddam _claimed_ 500 tons. In '98.

"I'm 'pretty' sure saddam got them from the U.S. to fight Iran with. As did Saddam get much of his military might from us as well."

Oh, bloody hell.

The inanity continues. You're not sure, because that's bullshit. It's easily proven wrong. If you give it an instant of *thought*. Rather than giving you the answer - I'll use the socratic method. You tell *me* what "military might" we supplied Saddam in the 80s. How many tanks, and what make. How many airplanes, what make/model. How many missiles, and their US designation.

You made the assertation, you back it up.

"The Sarin nerve agent could have easily been brought in by the countless hostiles that have been entering Iraq since the start of the war."

It was binary. Do you understand the science that requires? That's not something you whip up in a high school chem lab.

In fact, a huge amount of the KGB's funding of the "leftist" protests against the US military in Europe in the early 80s was _because_ we had 2 things: Binary nerve agents, and Enhanced Radiation Devices (ERDs aka the "neutron bomb").

Both of which were so far beyond their capacity to match as to be unreachable. The USSR, spending 40% of their GNP on the military - with top scientists - were unable to do what we were doing with ease. Think about that for a bit. *THINK*. About. That.

Binary agents meant we could have chemical/nerve agents - and in case of an accident, there wouldn't be a Bhopal in West Germany. The KGB-funded (and don't even start to argue that, the KGB files now open in Moscow have detailed lists of the money and causes they funded) "leftist" "peace" protests were against _SAFER_ weapons that stood _LESS CHANCE OF KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE_. Which is why those two EOD guys aren't dead - the guys setting up the IED didn't know it. No special markings, Iraqi-marked shell. Which the insurgents trucked along, and painted up just like the Iraqi army did, with SN and everything. Right.

"To be certain that those were Saddam's weapons... seems a little off. Why didn't he use them?"

For a lot of reasons, which I'm not going to go into here. But they all revolve around a brilliant military campaign under the Administration of a G.W. Bush. How about giving him some credit for that? Or at least the Military?

Speaking of which, leading up to the war, the talk was the Iraq had WMD capable of an "immenent threat to the US" to include chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on August 20, 2004 10:28 AM

"Speaking of which, leading up to the war, the talk was the Iraq had WMD capable of an "immenent threat to the US" to include chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons."

Whoops, missed that quote I meant to render.

Not from the _Bush Administration_.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Now, the _Press_ often phrased things like "The President refused to categorize the rush to war against Iraq as an attempt to defuse an imminent threat", etc.

Read this:
http://patterico.com/archives/002564.php

Then back up and go read the *rest* of what he's got on his front page. I'm not asking you to change you mind, just read it all, and see if you don't see something different.

But in the meantime, how about an admission that you were wrong, on that one thing, at least, that Bush never once claimed the threat was "imminent"?

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on August 20, 2004 10:36 AM

This is what I see:
"You're dumb"
"Why?"
"Kerry fought in Vietnam"
"No he didn't" ::buries child with facts::
"Yeah? Well Bush lied."
"No he didn't" ::buries child with facts::
" *squawk* Democrats are go. *squawk* "
"Ugh"
[at this point, child copies and pastes link to a nifty little site with blinking things on it, in hopes we will be distracted]
"ugh" [beats child with neares object, walks off]

Posted by: MetallicaRat on August 20, 2004 11:36 AM

As pointed out, the 'tax cut' issue is patently a non-issue: anyone who cannot see that the reduction in taxes was (is!) a completely fair move has something seriously wrong with their thinking. Any statements made on other issues by that person will not be able to be held up to scruitinzation. Addison (the other one) explained the 'tax issue' in such a way that even a 14 year old can understand. What *I* cannot understand is why it is unfair. Are we missing something? I certainly would like to see a well reasoned argument as to why it is unfair.

Oh and:

"Sorry for trying to get along with everyone =/"

Typical liberal clap-trap. We *can't* get along with everyone, that's life. That's just a reiteration of a 'peacemonger' argument "why can't we all just get along?". Would you like an interview with Hussein to ask him to just 'get along'? How about Fidel Castro? There are people (in the loosest sense) who just cannot 'get along'. What do you suggest we do with such people? Ignore them? 'Tell them off' (we have the UN to do that - they do such a great job of it, too)?

The 'no child left behind' act, is in my belief (I'll get to that in a moment), an effort to straighten out the states individual education systems, which are failing at an exponential rate. Something had to be done: 'The People' wanted something to be done (I think we can agree on that). I certainly agree that a standardized level of education is needed, and *perhaps* it would be a good idea to have it at a federal level. Since states are complaining about needing more money, the federal government is prepared to 'give' money to the states, but with certain requirements attached. However, it outlines an inherent problem of centralized government: the administrative overhead and management of such a program, over a large area, and a large population is incredibly innefficient. In addition, as with those on welfare systems (as this is), the recipients become lazy and complacent: all I've heard - admittedly through the media - from those recipients (the schools) is how underfunded they still are, and can't teach in such 'abysmal' conditions. Kids are still failing; but, there are areas where the standard is and continues to be raised. Such programs are not overnight successes. Is the money going where it needs to go? Probably not. This is why the schools should be administered (this word used loosley, and at the lowest overhead possible, in this context) at a lower level, not federal. Unfortunately, these lower level administrators have demonstrated an incompetence, and the Federal Government is giving them a bitch-slap to buck up their ideas: here's the cash, but on our terms. They are taking the cash (what's left of it after big government beaurocracy), and not doing anything with it to educate the kids in their care. Thus, an argument that the 'no child left behind' is failing those it is designed to help. As money is poured in, the situation gets worse: money.is.not.the.problem.

With regards to the war in Iraq. WMD's are a non-issue. Saddam Hussein needed taking care of, and it should have been done a long time ago. Should we talk about it? Of course: what has been going on the past decade or more?! All the while being shot at by the bastard? It's all about oil? Of course it's about oil. We buy a percentage of oil from Iraq. It is certainly within our interest to help our supplier maintain supply. At the same time, though, Iraq could dissappear into the sand, along with its oil, and it would only be a minor inconvenience to the US as far as oil goes. But, there are more significant issues at stake. With the attack on US soil, we have been made acutely aware of those issues. And we did something about them.

Now, it comes down to opinion, which is what 'matthew g' proclaimed: An issue is raised which requires a decision. We all have a 'gut feel' for what that decision should be; what decision we would make, and we will find examples, numbers, etc. supporting that decision. Likewise with the opposite standpoint.

Form a well reasoned argument, based on facts. Whether right or wrong, you will be respected for your argument. Perhaps you will change other peoples minds, perhaps not. The key is 'well reasoned' and 'respect'. Something I have yet to see from the Democrats, or their supporters.

Posted by: Stephen J Whiteley on August 20, 2004 11:49 AM

Denny
You search for Whack a Troll on any search engine and your site is 2 or 3. You might need to work on getting to #1. I am tired of hearing about he poodle pissing and moanin about the swiftboat vets. He thinks Bush is part of the group. They made him cry cuz they think he is a lying bastard. The truth hurts.

I liked the links kittenchow was getting info from.
www.ppionline.org/ a dimocrit site
www.aflcio.com a union site enough said
www.ctj.org judging from stries leftest
www.aclu.org like they will support
www.nrdc.org Tree huggers

If you need data sites with REALdata you might want to ask one of the Addisons for some links.

Posted by: Greg DiCroce on August 20, 2004 12:20 PM

Greg - Holy shit! You're right. I just Googled Whack a Troll.

Matthew - you say that Bush is a halfwit. Do you have any proof other than your dislike of the man? His SAT scores and college grades were higher than Gore's so he must be a halfwit also and he invented the internet. It's a joke Robin. He got an MBA from Harvard. They don't give them away. Gore flunked out of divinity school (How the fuck do you flunk out of divinity school?) and dropped out of law school. I have already explained why one cannot be a halfwit and fly performance fighter jets. JFK Jr. was supposed to be brilliant and he flew a single engine prop plane into the ocean. Ask any pilot and he will tell you what happened was probably pilot error. People should know better than to ride with a Kennedy anywhere near water.

To the rest of you, thanks. I've popped up some popcorn and I'm sitting back and enjoying the show.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on August 20, 2004 01:20 PM

Immediate, Dangerous, Mounting, Real, Significant, Unique, Grave, Mortal, and yes... Imminent
Imminent was used by Rummy, Bartlett, McClellan, and Fleischer. All senior administration officials and spokespeople.

As to being "pretty" sure. It's cuz I wasn't sure. I can't find too much information that supports that basis, now that i'm awake and clear headed. When I'm conjecturing... at least I make it obvious. However, now that I decided to look up some crap.... I found some fun stuff. Some of very strongly relates to U.S. involvement in Iraq's Chem/Bio weapons programs.

Discovery Channel Piece on the whole situation, including the help US gave to Saddam w/ knowledge he was going to use Chem Weapons

Easy to Read List of Iraq-US aid to their Bio Weapons

CDC's letter detailing exports to Iraq


"Back in 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which is the Committee which has Senate oversight for the Export Administration Act, held an inquiry into the United States export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors had identified many United States-manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs."

Senator Don Riegle, May 1994

I read the patterico piece. Yeah. The original Kerry article is biased. Mostly because it is told from the point of view of Kerry's campaign. WaPo most likely has reporters imbedded in both campaigns to cover them. However, that piece that is next to it is ridiculous. While serving as a useful counterpoint, the over use of "alleged" "claim" "tries" , and throwing in every Bush counter point in a piece that is pretty much about Kerry is absurd.

The original article is even critical of Kerry on several points... whereas the new article says nothing negative about Bush. So while the media does have a slight liberal lean, it is not so much as to save criticism of liberal candidates.

It's like reading History books. You never get a completely clean spin... and it's up to the intelligence of the reader to remove some of the choice adjectives.

Posted by: Robin Palm on August 20, 2004 01:31 PM

Yes, in answer to your question, you have excellent commenters. I love they way xCavTrooper and Addison refute your troll with facts, logic and common-sense. Plus, they have the wherewithall to backup their claims by providing links to sources where they gathered their information.

Truly, these commenters have superior English and research skills, the likes of which your troll seems unable to ever achieve.

BTW, the level of intelligence, logic and sanity evidenced by commenters to a particular blog are always a key element determining whether or not I will return to read that blog again.

Posted by: Kasey on August 20, 2004 01:53 PM

when ill you guys learn that saddam had no wmd, he had no links with al qa'ida, and that the concept of a pre-emptive war is illigal.

1. no wmd have been found
2. bathist party was against the establishment of a country run under islam. this is the oppoit to al qa'ida, which is secular. hussain and bin laden would be fundimentally opposed.
3. what? do you invade a country for whhat it might do? do i kill a dog because it might bite me? now extremists like robert mugabe is free to invade his neibours because they might invade him. Same with south korea. In other words, the international rule of law has been trounced into nothing by a dunderhead out to finnish his father's business.

and you guys desparately try to justify this war, producing source after source, just because your american, and you think your oh-so great, and that this allows you to do everything you want. well, it doesn't. 9/11 was a black eye: preparee for more.

as for taxation: its a reality, get over it. it is necessary. I look at it as follows: some people are rich, while others are poor - how is this fair when they work the same ammount? some people work bloody hard mining, cleaning etc while others earn lots by doing relatively little. This is all down to luck, and to say that it is down to hard work I view as an attempt to justify your desire to keep your money to yourself. This is selfish, and an attemp to shut out the world so you kan keep your conscious clean while others starve. How naive? how childish.

open your eyes. starrt to think.

Posted by: matthew g on August 20, 2004 02:07 PM

matthew wrote,

addison writes long speels with numerous links desparately trying to proove why he doesnt want to pay tax

Someone's playing loose with the facts. I said I was in the second to LOWEST tax bracket, not next to HIGHEST. I don't make much money by anyone's standards. I have never promoted the abolition of taxes. No one but the King of Fools would promote not paying taxes. You are wrong and you have egregiously misrepresented what I wrote and you know it.

There is no desperation in my writing. Desperation is when you when you have no argument and repeat yourself despite being proven wrong. But you know this; you do it all the time.

why bush waas right to attack a country wich hadn't attzacked first

Almost every war in US history occurred without a country attacking us first. It is a Red Herring that proves nothing. WWI, WWII (against Germany), the Revolutionary War, Vietnam, Korean War, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, ..., were advanced without the US being struck first. Only a fleeting knowledge of US history is needed to put down this line of thinking. [And I didn't post any links backing up my support to attack Iraq.]
but it all boils down too opinion

The statistics of students passing reading and math exams in Texas is not opinion. Funding of homeland security is not opinion. Terrorist ties to the Iraqi government are not opinion. They are facts. Geesh, you're about as bad as MeowWhachamacallit.

Anyway...did you guys know John Kerry was in Vietnam? That's the craziest thing. Operated boats or sumptin'.

Frankly, we need a new topic of discussion.

Posted by: addison on August 20, 2004 02:13 PM

Terrorist ties to the Iraqi government are not opinion. They are facts

hahaahaha. how ,can I debate with someone s;o errantly and obviously wrong? there were no ties. where, other thhan on fox and in the closed minds of the conservative uninteligencia, is the evidence for links between bin laden and hussain.

Posted by: matthew g on August 20, 2004 02:22 PM

The DOJ report against Iraq--written in 1998--specifically cited links to terrorists. Abu Abas retreated to Iraq. Al Zaquari (spelling) received hospital treatment at a hospital run by Uday Hussein. Payments to suicide bombers' families. Putin warned Bush of Iraqi ties to terorirst and possible transfer of weapons to be placed in the US--and Russia was vehemently anti-war on the Iraq issue. These are not things pulled from the air. It is you who refuses to admit things clearly before you. The above can all be found at the websites of the DoJ, Whitehouse, CNN, NYT, et al. Oh, I know CNN and the NYT are right-wing apparatchiks.

bathist party was against the establishment of a country run under islam. this is the oppoit to al qa'ida, which is secular. hussain and bin laden would be fundimentally opposed.

I wrote that the difference between a Leftist and child is difficult to discern. Here is a perfect example of the millimeter-deep thinking ability of the Left. That they differed in religious outlook but both declared America the greatest threat to their plans is immaterial to you. The mere possibility of a terrorist-supporting state conferring with a terrorist organization is beyond the pale to you.

By that logic, the US, a constitutional republic, and the Soviet Union, a communist police state, would have never worked together in WWII against something they saw as a greater threat to the both of them, the Nazi machine of Hitler. Wouldn't have happened. No way. Wouldn't be done. Off-limits even to speculate on such a enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend ad hoc arrangement.

Mary Habeck, military historian and avid researcher of present-day Islamist and "Jihadi" movements, gave a talk where she noted various Sunni groups working with Shiites and vice versa. The two groups consider, under normal circumstances, the other to be apostates but, oh my gosh, they're working together to further terrorist activity. Say it ain't so.

No common sense, no knowledge of history...

You're pathetic. I'm relegating you to "scroll-over" country, whereby I check the name of the poster first and, if I see yours, scroll past the post because I know it will be rife with such aforementioned illogic and foolishness. Denny can read your pap but I see no reason to.

Posted by: addison on August 20, 2004 02:49 PM

Matthew - you have been doing so well and now you have slipped back into brainless liberal/socialist land. I'll let the others talk about WMD's and ties to al Qaeda. They do exist. And now you're the one saying 'Lalala can't hear you. You heard it on Fox (oh please give a few concrete examples of Fox's bias).' Where you have really sunk back into your socialist mode was when you wrote the following:

some people are rich, while others are poor - how is this fair when they work the same ammount? some people work bloody hard mining, cleaning etc while others earn lots by doing relatively little. This is all down to luck, and to say that it is down to hard work I view as an attempt to justify your desire to keep your money to yourself.

Luck has nothing to do with it. People work in mining or cleaning because they have no education. Who's fault is that? I've stated this many times. My sister and I came from a dysfunctional family with an alcoholic for a father. He was often out of work. My mother had to work to support us. We were poor. Oh bad luck for us but my sister and I did things to escape poverty. We got an education. We worked hard. Luck had nothing to do with it! I used to work with a man who was the son of a Mississippi sharecropper. He grew up black and poor in the Deep South. He joined the Air Force and got an education and made something of himself. Luck had nothing to do with it! Maybe in the UK you cannot escape poverty, but in the United States there is no excuse for being poor unless you have incredibly bad luck (Disease or catastrophic accident). As I've said before, I don't mind helping those people out. That is what our social safety net is designed to do. I resent having money taken from me to support generational welfare recipients.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on August 20, 2004 02:53 PM

"some people are rich, while others are poor - how is this fair when they work the same ammount? some people work bloody hard mining, cleaning etc while others earn lots by doing relatively little. This is all down to luck, and to say that it is down to hard work I view as an attempt to justify your desire to keep your money to yourself."

To quote the late Ted Knight (as Judge Smails): "The world needs ditch diggers too."

Posted by: Erik on August 20, 2004 03:30 PM

Just outa morbid curiosity, am I the only one who printed out/saved this entire comment thread? Because if you ever needed a "visual aid" for "Debate 101", this is it. Hell, I almost doubled the size of my bookmark files using the source links listed above.

Who knew education could be so fun? [grin]

Posted by: Bob on August 20, 2004 03:41 PM

"This is all down to luck, and to say that it is down to hard work I view as an attempt to justify your desire to keep your money to yourself. This is selfish, and an attemp to shut out the world so you kan keep your conscious clean while others starve. How naive? how childish."

This is borderline offensive. Have you ever started up a business Matthew? Have you ever worked 12+ hours a day, took barely enough salary to get by, and worked your fingers to the bone to get a business up and running. And after years of thankless work, you have a thriving business and can finally see some return on your hard won investment, ignorant prats like you try to say that it was all just Luck. Why don't you try it? Instead of being a smarmy brat with your hand out, think up a business plan and start up your own business. Then after you have done that, lets see if you still prat on about Luck.

Posted by: Yosemite Sam on August 20, 2004 03:42 PM

Matthew:

I posted this above. You obviously didn't read it. Read it again. Then apologise for your accusations and continued debasement of the truth:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb thought to contain deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war."

No WMD, Matthew? This also discounts the massive finds by the Poles. But right there. That one shell makes your statement of "NO WMDs" wrong. Continuing to state is as you are is a lie, as you now can know better.

"hussain and bin laden would be fundimentally opposed."

I keep hearing this. Problem is, they weren't. See, they had something bigger in mind, a bigger fish to fry. After the US and UK were out of the way, then they'd deal with each other. Now, you can say "They shouldn't have..." and you can say that safely. But the _FACTS_ are that they _WERE_ in communication. Saddam was massively backing terrorists in proxy wars, and had several very fruitful meetings with Bin Laden and BL's top associates.
"Feb. 14, 1999 U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ... In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden. "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency ... Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq."

Ok, Matthew. That's 2 strikes for you. Either do something to refute them, or else I'll join my evil twin (Oh, wait, I'm the evil twin...) in having to ignore you. I've tried, and I think I've been patient to explain things to you, but you refuse to change what you're saying. Merely saying that I'm/we're WRONG and you're right.

"the concept of a pre-emptive war is illigal."

Bull. Show me chapter and verse where this is outlawed.

"you guys desparately try to justify this war, producing source after source, just because your american, and you think your oh-so great, and that this allows you to do everything you want. well, it doesn't. 9/11 was a black eye: preparee for more."

And now we get to the heart of the matter. The blind hatred and glee that people died. HA! The world trade center collapsed! Glee glee glee!

Yes, there will be more. But it's more likely to hit you - you're closer to the center, and much more likely to hit in France. Matthew, the people who hit on 9/11 didn't hit because we think we're so great. They hit because you dare to insult The Religion, and do not worship as they do. You, matthew, they _HATE YOU TOO_. They hate because our women don't cover up, and dare to backtalk the men. And even _GIVE MEN ORDERS_. Do you think this is a good thing? Do you want women as chattel?

"This is all down to luck, and to say that it is down to hard work I view as an attempt to justify your desire to keep your money to yourself."

Bull. It's down to determination. Sure, there's some luck involved. But once you're past that, it's what you want, and what you're willing to go and get. And why should I not keep my money to myself? After all, it's _MY_ money!
The only way you can say that is to say that it's not actually my money, it's money that all of society owns... etc. Socialism. Which so far, responds in the same spiral of apathy and lack of drive.

But Matthew: You've been shown facts about terror connections. You've been shown proof positive about deadly chemical weapons found in Iraq, and their attempts to produce nuclear ones.

If you blindly assert those as false, you get, as we said on Usenet *PLUNK*ed into the "Killfile". Argue them if you'd like - but assert them as knowns that we're fools for, and you're a bigger fool than I thought.

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on August 20, 2004 03:55 PM

Iraq and terrorists:

In addition to Addison's foregoing examples, don't forget Abu Nidal, the biggest terrorist F on the planet for a long time, found dead in Iraq about 2 years ago ("suicide", but he was shot about 5 times. Pretty impressive suicide.)

Even Al Jazeera West (aka CNN) got this story mostly right.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/

Posted by: daniel on August 20, 2004 04:03 PM

Robin:
"Immediate, Dangerous, Mounting, Real, Significant, Unique, Grave, Mortal, and yes... Imminent Imminent was used by Rummy, Bartlett, McClellan, and Fleischer. All senior administration officials and spokespeople."

I was going to note that most were not even CLOSE to saying "immient" - even stripped of context. So I picked the one that used that word, and you know what I found?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html

------
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.

QUESTION: Who's going to do the reminding to NATO?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just made some comments regarding that and, obviously, we will work through NATO, as well.

QUESTION: So what's the significance of that, it goes to the core -- I mean, what if it's rejected?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we support the request by Turkey under Article IV.

QUESTION: Is the United States prepared to give Turkey more military equipment if NATO nations don't, to protect --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's see what happens.

QUESTION: Scott, is there some evidence of the Iraqis positioning military troops or weapons among its civilian population?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I just noted, that Saddam Hussein is already taking steps. And this is what the President will talk about, as well, in his remarks --

QUESTION: No, I understand, but what I'm asking is --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to pre-position his military forces
------

So the quote they're pulling isn't about the US at all - it's an immient threat to TURKEY, as Iraqi troops made threatening moves and NATO abandonded them.

Not about the US. I'm pretty sure the others have similar contexts - ie, not what you're claiming.

I think you need to apologise for that. I really, really do. Or at least stop tossing IQ scores around.

"I found some fun stuff. Some of very strongly relates to U.S. involvement in Iraq's Chem/Bio weapons programs."

But I thought they didn't exist?

_EITHER_ they existed, or they didn't. Pick one. Now.

Additionally, most of what you detailed was under health and medical purposed items. Most from what I know aren't weaponizeable, and most weren't embargoed even after the 91 war.

But that doesn't get you off the hook. You said: "As did Saddam get much of his military might from us as well."

Ok, the floor's still open. How much of his "military might" did he get, and please give details. Manufacturer, model, and at least what class of weapon.

C'mon, if it was "much" of the 5th largest army in the world, that shouldn't be hard to do, right?

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on August 20, 2004 04:10 PM

http://www.swiftvets.com

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 05:43 PM

Hey, 9 Lives:

Since you apparently believe anything you read, since it is in writing after all, even on the 'net:

http://www.johnfkerrysucks.com/

http://www.papersourceonline.com/deaths.htm

http://larouchein2004.net/

Posted by: daniel on August 20, 2004 06:03 PM

MeowMix -

This is pretty much what Addison was talking about when he noted your lack of knowledge and experience.

The websites you posted...are these the "reliable sources" you mentioned earlier ?

So the Government is responsible for 9/11 because septembereleventh.org said so ? When did they become a credible news source ?

Check

this

out. This is a reliable source. Tell me what you feel about the credibility of this site.

Posted by: Greg on August 20, 2004 06:15 PM

check out this site http://www.swiftvets.com

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 06:46 PM

i beleve evrything on that site.

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 06:50 PM

Can't add much to what's been said, except in reply to PussyGalore's assertion:

"...bathist party was against the establishment of a country run under islam. this is the oppoit to al qa'ida, which is secular."

WTF? Al Qaeda is secular? Refresh my memory, FelineMongrel. Doesn't secular mean non-religious? And, doesn't Al Qaeda scream Allah Ak-bar (or whatever the hell those barbarian bastards caterwaul) while they are lopping heads off of non-ROP'ers? And doesn't that mean something like, "Praise be to Allah"? Tell me how that's secular. They are driven by Islam, they live by Islam, and I can only hope that they die mighty soon because of Islam.

Posted by: skh on August 20, 2004 06:59 PM

WOW
Puss n boots got this topic up to 63 posts. When it hits 75 SELL.

So how bout those Olympians......

Posted by: Greg DiCroce on August 20, 2004 08:38 PM

Can you stop making fun of my name? Does it prove anything, or help if i put my real name?

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 08:49 PM

http://www.swiftvets.com

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 08:58 PM

Oh btw that's a real site so, click it tell me what you think. :/

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 09:00 PM

Moveon.org sucks

Posted by: MeowMix on August 20, 2004 09:04 PM

MeowMix - Run along little boy. You are no longer amusing. All of your arguments have been refuted. The only sources you can cite are moonbat sources. Go hang out at Moveon.org or Democraticunderground. There you will find loonies who agree with your insane view of the world. Further comments will be either deleted or edited.

Observe Robin. He knows how to debate honestly. We don't agree with him but at least he has a functioning brain. Matthew is a work in progress. Just when I think we're making progress he relapses back into loony leftist talking points.

Anyway, this thread has gone on long enough so I'm closing it.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on August 20, 2004 09:19 PM
Post a comment