Richard Pryor Has died
The world has lost a Comic Genius
Rest in peace Mr Pryor
More details Here
Rest in peace.
Rest in peace.
Nice find H!
Funny, in a sad kind of way.
On the positive spin... look at that diversity that are the "pro war" folks! It was male, female, black, white, yellow, brown, poor, rich, and everything in between!
You gotta love it. American, land of the free, and home of the brave! (nothing there about "educated").
This is like Jay Leno's sidewalk skits. I don't recall any questions about being prowar. Gotta love how Gump just makes shit up.
Hey dippy, did you read the post? I was commenting on that part of it... note the author of the post said "pro-war".... oh wait, that would mean you calmed your shaking hands (from far too much red bull consumption) long enough to keep it on one page for a few seconds.
I posted this one a while back on Logical Voice - I love the "glass crater" grampa. People like him help humanity know its limits - in this case how much of an asshole someone can be.
hehehe , yup and in the good old US of A every so often an asshole like that gets to become President
Gump this is a comedy sketch. Your comments about the race of people in the video is meaningless.
I think you are meaningless, nice pic too, freak.
law... they are the law..
well, not for much longer...
lol... dude, are you like 9th grade? I am just asking, because it seems like you have no memory of anything over the last 5 years, and you have no concept of history, the constitution, bill of rights, or much else for that matter.
rather then argue with hype G , why not tell me what aspect of the constitution , bill of rights or much else prevents this being iligal ?
where is your memory of the last 5 years?
major corruption effort by the GOP
people who work in the white house are indicted for outing a CIA agent
the list goes on and on..
Where have you been? Because it seems you have had your head up your ass for the last 5 years.
That was a "figurative measure," boys. Not meant to be taken seriously, let alone read.
LOL are you implying that G uses some form symbolic method of expressing his view of the world that has very little (if any) base in the world we know
Welcome to the club Djeb , it seems you have met our 'G'
It also has very little, if any, to do with what he actually wants to say, apparently.
being good to the environment is bad for the bottom line.
well at least in their short view of things it is.
Kind of makes you wonder what went on during Cheney's closed door energy policy meetings.
You could also type this post out titled:
What America did to save its economy from the Cult of Environmentalist.
If you think I am wrong... wait until a Dem President, who holds that support of the greens gets into power... they will back out to.
No President will ever want to be the one to go into the books as the one who saved a lot of trees, but sank the US's dominance in world economics.
Oh, and a side note:
Why are China and India "exempt" from Kyoto? They produce more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined.
G on your side note why is china exempt , they are not entrely exempt , but they are currently exempt from the effect of because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.
in other words it is our mess
as for you comment on "They produce more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined. " this is fiction G , I dont know where you got this information but it simply incorrect
the United States is by far the worst culprit on the planet , nobody even comes close
it may make you feel better to think that china is worse but the US is way out in front , even more scary considering the population of china compared to your own
as for "What America did to save its economy from the Cult of Environmentalist." the only cult is your own G , you cant call 95 % of the planet a cult , surely the little part of the world that is you is the cult
"Why are China and India "exempt" from Kyoto? They produce more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined."
Why did you thing anyone would fall for this? Honestly.
Because they want to fall for it , the right are increasingly desperate for any snippet they can find to justify the thoughts in their heads compared to what can be seen with their own eyes
There a hundreds of examples of this kind of thing ,
you know the stuff , "NEW EVIDENCE , we have spoken to the dog of someone who went to school with saddam and the dog has informed us that Saddam was spotted as a child drawing pictures of an Aeroplane exploding , so there you have it , saddam WAS linked to 9/11 , we are not sheep who were foolish enough to fall for such obvious lies , we were corrrect"
As you know there are hundreds of web sites that post trash like that and then in their desperate search for 'facts' to justify their faith in the vision of the world they have ,t he right pick these stories up and post them everywhere.
I think the majority 'genuinly' believe these silly rumours and on the example above i can assure you that posting the actual data in reply will not make the slightest bit of difference to G's beliefs . He will be able to search his sources and find some 'Oil money' funded research that debunks the whole thing as it was raining on the day that the scientists went to the shops to by the pen's that they used for their calculations
When oil production hits peak in the next couple of years, it will be interesting to see "NEW EVDENCE" they present that oil prices are actually lower than before, and "NEW EVIDENCE" showing that their agricultural system is not threatening them with starvation as it collapses.
At any rate, "g," that was not a rhetorical question. I want to know why you thought anyone would fall for that.
LOL Djeb , you are a very well informed person who can shread someones irrational argument in seconds , so let me ask you a question
do you think G is going to come and reply to 'this' post ?
of course not
I did leave a message on his site with a link to this thread and he has popped in and left a comment on my top post (currrent as i type)
He openly said to me today in reply to a similar question from m
Honestly, I just dont have time to find a link for everything. I dont keep them on hand (as I know you do). I read and listen to a ton of media sources and outlets all day long at work, but rarely have the chance to stop and document everything I hear and/or read"
in short , he doesnt have sources to factual information
he does have opinions though :-)
"do you think G is going to come and reply to 'this' post ?"
He has to for his cred. He claims to be a marine. You know, honor, courage, blah, blah. Marines are supposed to have the integrity to admit mistakes (being men of high character, supposedly), but run away? A cowardly marine? Who on Earth ever heard of such a thing?
"he doesnt have sources to factual information"
He doesn't need them; the facts have already been provided by you. The factual information is not the point. The point was that I wanted to know who he thought he could fool with that ridiculous claim. The claim itself is not the point.
looks like Gump had his shirt handed to him again...
Has Gump fixed his blog yet?
How many roving smog clouds that kill crops do you see in the US? Out of those roving smog clouds (there arent any), how many travel to the neighbors and kill their crops? China does! "Other Asian countries, such as Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and the Philippines have all reported acid rain problems originating from China's coal burning pollution."
death rate related to COPD deaths, is five time higher in China than in the United States. "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [is] linked to exposure to fine particulates, SO2, and cigarette smoke among other factors,accounted for 26% of all deaths in China in 1988".
Satellite data has revealed that the city is one of the worst environmental victims of China's spectacular economic growth, which has brought with it air pollution levels that are blamed for more than 400,000 premature deaths a year. According to the European Space Agency, Beijing and its neighbouring north-east Chinese provinces have the planet's worst levels of nitrogen dioxide, which can cause fatal damage to the lungs.
"An explosive increase in car ownership is blamed for a sharp rise in unhealthy emissions. In the past five years the number of vehicles clogging the capital's streets has more than doubled to nearly 2.5m. It is expected to top the 3m mark by the start of the Olympics in 2008."
Now, if you take into account how many cars are hitting the markets in China, and how fast that number is growing, China will drown out everyone with their pollution levels in 10 years. Industrial pollution (the main target of Kyoto) is only only worse than consumer household items in levels of emitted pollutents. The worst by far is road vehicles, emitting roughly 3,000 tones of various pollutents per day. Second is non-road vehicles at approximately 1,500 tons per day, and then way down the list comes Buisness and Industry, at about 641 tons a day.
So, now that we have established the gayness of me having to cite sources for stuff that is readily available, can we cut the "creditability" crap and get down to brass tacks?
You guys want to believe that China being "exempt" from Kyoto has anything to do with their pollution levels, or that it is because they are "developing", you can keep drinking your mirage wine. If you'd like to see the real goal of the Kyoto, it is to cripple established and powerful economies, trying to level the playing field to match someone else's idea of "fair".
If Kyoto was actually inteneded on finding something to stop the "global warming", it would A.) Acutally prove that we are causing it, not rely on other's inconclusive data, and B.) Attack the dependancy on internal combustion engines burning gasoline, since they are the biggest contributor to air pollution.
What a crock of shit. You guys are on loopy heaven. I dont have time to come up with an obscure link for every bullshit statment I want to make, some shit is just true without a "link" to back it up. Quite skirting the issue behind the vield of "what is your resource".
I would love to reply to that (and i will), but i will wait for DJEB to respond to you as he asked you the question .
"internal combustion engines burning gasoline, since they are the biggest contributor to air pollution"
Gump doesn't know what he is talking about.
Cars and trucks make up about 22%.
Power plants - 33%
Major transportation (Planes) 33 %
First off, I'm still waiting to have my question answered. Here it is yet again: Why did you thing anyone would fall for your claim?
A reply to the series of "loopy" non sequiturs topped off with a strawman fallacy is forthcoming. I'm readying for work and cannot get to it now.
I just gave you numbers, real numbers... including quoted sources from outside the US talking about China being the leading polluter... but, shocker, I got no actual response... just Hype's "talk a lot without saying much", and now it appears djeb's attempt to deflect what I threw out there.
I honestly dont have time to keep it up back and forth. I am not going to change your mind, but at least aknoledge that I did give you what you asked for and quit the snide crap. If you want to cling to your hot air balloon theory that the US is killing the world, fine... but dont expect anyone with out blue (or green?) tinted glasses on to accept it.
wow , not so fast G , thats called running away , i know you have time to check my site once a day , as does DJEB , he has spotted your reply and clearly says
reply to the series of "loopy" non sequiturs topped off with a strawman fallacy is forthcoming.
he is not in your time zone so just check tomorrow , we waited 3 days for your reply , but you wont wait even 12 hours for his
give me a break , you have time to check tomorrow , your sounding chicken
" we waited 3 days for your reply , but you wont wait even 12 hours for his "
It's called hypocrisy, _H_.
As I said, I had to go off to work. But, as is apparent, you are not good at reading.
Your post, g, was such a non sequitur that I enterained the notion that it was not written in response to my question. It seems to be attempting to defend to initial "bullshit statment" (your words) that China "produce[s] more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined." Of note, this was in reference to Kyoto, which, of course, deals with greenhouse gases. Assuming this is the case, let us look at the defence offered in standard form:
Since there "roving smog clouds that kill crops" in China
And there are acid rain problems in other countries from China's pollution (partially counter-balanced by China's growing desertification problem)
And China's air pollution causes "more than 400,000 premature deaths a year"
And there has been an"explosive increase in car ownership" in China
And China's pollution will become much worse in 10 years as the problem is growing exponentially
Therefore, China "produce[s] more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined."
Now, I'm not sure just how it is you believe a syllogism works, I can assure you that this is a non sequitur. As such, you were quite accurate when you called it a "bullshit statment."
Now that this has been established, we can return to the "brass tacks." Again, regarding your statement that China creates more pollution than Canada, Mexico and the United States of America combined, Why did you thing anyone would fall for this statement?
That particular statement was meant as a figurative theme, not quite the exact factual statement you are trying to tie me to. Please forgive me if I assumed you understood this, and were asking me more to back up the claim of China being a terrible polluter.
Now, as for the charge of me being a bit hasty… I’m not entirely sure where you presumed I was complaining about your response time (as I stated nothing to the effect). I simply was saying I wouldn’t keep up a ridiculous diatribe that consists of you attacking me, while I defend facts… stupid really.
On to the larger picture as a whole, why is you have neither addressed the facts put forth, nor the evidence. I assume by your absence of debate and or counter evidence that you accept this. This would lead me (and most) to the conclusion that you either don’t understand what I said, or by default believe it. Either way, the bottom line still stands that I have put forth very convincing information that would suggest a potential flaw in the “righteous curtain” that the world’s environmental elite attempt to operate behind (think Wizard of Oz).
Now to the grammatically bs. Since my statement was a figurative measure to try and express a point, it really doesn’t fall into the syllogism arena, instead, more of an exaggerated metaphor maybe… jury is out there. But I neither tried to “logic” from a broad view down to a specific view, nor did I try to bring you down a “A + B = C, thus C – B = A” reasoning.
I simply linked and quoted resources that plainly say “China is the world’s leader”… that’s about as clear cut as we can get.
So you are prone to making silly statements then trying to back them up with fallacious arguments. I see.
Next, you vs. you:
"shocker, I got no actual response... djeb's attempt to deflect what I threw out there." (This after I clearly stated that I was not through.)
"Now, as for the charge of me being a bit hasty… I’m not entirely sure where you presumed I was complaining about your response time (as I stated nothing to the effect). I simply was saying I wouldn’t keep up a ridiculous diatribe that consists of you attacking me, while I defend facts… stupid really."
"On to the larger picture as a whole, why is you have neither addressed the facts put forth, nor the evidence. I assume by your absence of debate and or counter evidence that you accept this."
What fact would that be? Your "figurative measure" AKA "bullshit statement"? That has been shown to be empty. If it is the statements regarding pollution in China on its own and not in comparison to other nations, I never challenged them, did I. If fact, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked, does it.
I simply linked and quoted resources that plainly say “China is the world’s leader”… that’s about as clear cut as we can get.
This you did in reponse to my question as to why you thought anyone would fall for your original asinine claim, leading me, as I said, to assume that you meant to defend the original claim. You have explained yourself now, though. You are prone to making asinine statements as a "figurative measure." Now I know never to take anything you say seriously. Fine enough.
H, you said I would get debate from this guy, not lines of fancy rhetoric and condescension. What I do find amazing is the twist and turns he had to take to actually use my words to make a non-point.(or “non-sequitur”) as he’d like to put it.
I guess that leaves us where? DJEB says he will no longer take me seriously (did he used to?), but he concedes that everything I said/quoted was true.
I’ll leave it there then that he would also concede that Kyoto is a tool used to level economic playing fields (much like WTO) instead of an actual environmental tool.
“ If it is the statements regarding pollution in China on its own and not in comparison to other nations, I never challenged them, did I.”
Thanks for the agreement DJEB, it was great.
More "bullshit statement[s]" and "figurative measure[s]."
What I do find amazing is the twist and turns he had to take to actually use my words to make a non-point.(or “non-sequitur”) as he’d like to put it.
An empty charge. Be more specific. I am guilty of continually sticking to my original question whilst you were insistent on offering non sequiturs as though spewing out enough information would somehow deal with the issue at hand.
Not challenging supporting premises (I was genuinely disinterested in them) does not equal supporting a given conclusion. Let's try standard form again:
Because DJEB did not challenge the assertion that there "roving smog clouds that kill crops" in China
Or that there are acid rain problems in other countries from China's pollution (partially counter-balanced by China's growing desertification problem)
Or that China's air pollution causes "more than 400,000 premature deaths a year"
Or that there has been an"explosive increase in car ownership" in China
Or that China's pollution will become much worse in 10 years as the problem is growing exponentially
Therefore DJEB would agree that "Kyoto is a tool used to level economic playing fields"
Agreemnent? No, that would make another non sequitur, which you seem to be quite good at making. If you are serious about the issue of unfair advantage in international development economics, then I suggest that you'd better read Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away The Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective.
Until then, you might leave off the "bullshit statement[s]" and "figurative measure[s]."
Ok, one more time for the slow guy: (NOTE: All numbers are sources from Pew Center on Global Climate Change unless otherwise specified)
Type of fuel used is an important factor in emissions because fuels have significantly different ratios of CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumed. Coal produces 21 percent more CO2 than oil and 76 percent more CO2 than natural gas per unit of energy consumption.
Worldwide Energy Supply by Fuel Type:
Oil 36%, Coal 23%, Gas 20%
Hydroelectric, Nuclear, Renewable combined make up the other 21%
(EIA) The People's Republic of China (China) is the world's most populous country and the second largest energy consumer (after the United States). Production and consumption of coal, its dominant fuel, is the highest in the world.
Coal Production (2003E): 1.63 billion short tons
Coal Consumption (2003E): 1.53 billion short tons
Here is the “syllogism” you were looking for. China uses more coal than anyone in the world. Coal produces 21% more CO2 Than fossil fuels. CO2 are the largest contributor to global warming (if you believe it is man made). China contributes more than anyone else. But wait, we’re not done!
World wide CO2 emissions from 1860 to 1997 show a different pattern that you would choose to portray. A steady growth from about none, to 1,000 MMTC is registered until around 1940, at which point global emissions rates spiked up to approximately 6,300 MMTC in 1997. But guess what region is the world leader? Asia. That’s right, Asia, not the ALM, who only produces about 4,300 MMTC. (MMTC = million metric tons of carbon equivalents)
Still going though. If you want to look at “Per capita” pollution levels, most of the industrialized world beats out China. But this forgets the fact that 73% of their nation lives out in rural undeveloped “hinter lands”. In 1997, China was running a close second to the US in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and land-use changes (1,490 MMTC to 914). But that is not counting their recent growth (as the number is almost 10 years old), and more specifically, the SOURCE of those emissions.
Watch out, here comes another “syllogism”. If cars are the largest source of CO2 (NRDC: Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually in the US), and the US has more cars than anywhere else in the world, cars are the reason the US has higher emissions of CO2 than anyone else. If China is a close second, but has a fraction of the automobiles, and they use coal at their major source of fuel (which produces 21% more CO2 than fossil fuels), then China is producing more CO2 than anyone else in the world, if we ignore automobiles.
(Gasp! Another syllogism and a sequitur) Kyoto seeks to attack global warming by impacting CO2 emissions from nations industrial activities. Kyoto does not try to impede, impact, or change automobile activity. Kyoto is not an effective measure against the suspected sources of global warming, and in fact ignores the most dangerous emitter of these suspect sources.
Now, please quit with the dance around game. At this point you’ve pretty much lost my interest as you have nothing add to any real debate.
Oh, and yes, the NRDC link does quote as saying cars are the second leading source... but that is because they are only behind..... you guessed it: Coal!
Kyoto is a joke. You want to fight the good fight, quit supporting it, and get behind someone trying to create alternative fuels.
Again I find it hard to believe that your posts are a response to what I have said. The problem here is you refuse to look at what I have written. What I stated was stated several times in easy to understand language. Your latest response is to provide more data which I can only guess is to back up your original "bullshit statement" or "figurative measure," which _H_ took care of on December 10 at 9:37 PM.
Just to recap, you haven't proven that China "produce[s] more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined," or that "Kyoto is a tool used to level economic playing fields."
Your that one in class that tried to argue with the math teacher about 1+1=2....
Fallacy: diversionary humor.
So, you still have not proven that China "produce[s] more polution [sic] than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined," or that "Kyoto is a tool used to level economic playing fields."
Oops. I almost forgot "condescension."
Agreed. Bush needs Bin Laden alive. That's why when there were reports here of him being killed they quickly stopped - not denied, not disproven, just stopped.
I suspect they know where Al-Zawahri is too, and always knew where Bin Laden was. bin Laden needed dialysis for crying out loud. You can't carry a dialysis machine in your rucksack.
LOL very true , it is amazing how rarely the state of Osama's kidneys are mentioned considering the facts
A lie can work its way around the world before the truth can even put its boots on , and this lie is out in the Muslim hating anti Arab right wing world , and will now be repeated as truth.
Why on earth anyone would take an article from an Israeli news source on this subject as evidence is beyond me . surely it is obvious that their perspective would be motivated by more then honesty.
Iran prints articles every day saying they are NOT building a bomb , and of course this is taken with little credibility , so why would that not be spotted the other way round ?
Liarrific fibbing to be sure. But I'd almost be disappointed if they didn't do it.
hehe exactly , anyone with a brain would expect it ,
i dont blame them for trying , i just dont understand those that just rinse and repeat the claims
still its out now and the right will continue to rinse and repeat this story for ever more
And the Right people will believe it. Makes me want to hit my head against the wall. You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool the Right, or something like that.
I was going to say something similar
al-qaeda and saddam
saddam and 9/11
Iraq and WMD
dont you get sick of correcting each myth day after day . every time i go to a right wing blog i keep having to point out the same lies over and over .
I am covinced the right has a plan to drive us all insain by making the world repeat the same thing until we give up and sign ourselves up for the next availible labottomy
I don't go to right-wing web site and I don't debate them - I don't have time to waste on obvious fallacies. Right-wing thought is quite literally a mental illness (see Jack Glaser, Arie Kruglanski et al did in their paper Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition), and I don't have the time or training to deal with it.
ah wisdom and common sense
I have yet to learn to ignore the righties . I have just reached the point of refusing to debate with those who are still repeating Mohammed Atta stories and laughable claims about uranium and Niger , but i am so easily dragged into correcting ignorance .
My heart tells me it is pointless my fingers end up typing anyway
Ah, Mohammed Atta. I remember the days... Say, remember when the Quebec City protestors were going to throw AIDS tainted blood on the police? Those were the days, eh? Of course, that was before the world began on September 11th, 2001.
You mean there was a world before 9/11 ? :-) noooo , next you will be telling me that this terrorism thing already existed in this pre 9/11 world
get away with you !
I read this entire thing, and now I have to wonder how you will pretty much discredit this entire thing.
The guys said:
"I know they are trying to acquire the full fuel cycle. I know that acquiring the full fuel cycle means that a country is months away from nuclear weapons, and that applies to Iran and everybody else."
Sure, the JP sensationalized it, but exacly where did they lie? And now, to boot, are you implying that many of your "sources" have also sensationalized facts and slanted views to fit their agenda?
YOu propped this up on my site, and on here as if they lied, or that El Baradei didnt say this at all?
G , how can you miss it
the JP clearly says "IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb. "
Muhammad has never uttered those words ,
he has never said that Iran IS building a bomb at all never mind only a few months away
he has no evidence that Iran IS building a nuke and its his job to check
the Independent never printed the words they claim "El-Baradei told The Independent. "
if the JP are not a buch of liars then you will be able to show me where the IAEA has ever said that Iran is building a bomb at all ?
the JP clearly says " Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb. "
so show me where the IAEA have ever said in an interview with anyone that " Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb. "
G its a pure and simple lie , fiction , no base in reality ,he never said those words and the JP claimed he did
what possible excuse can you have that this is not pure lies
there is a big difference between highlighting key points and actually taking the words of the head of the IAEA and changing them to words you prefer
he has never said Iran is building a bomb at all , cant you see that !
they are liars
_H_, if you want to take the Logical Voice posting policy and post it on your site word for word, you are more than welcome. I think you will find rules 1, 2 and 5 most useful.
Thanks Djeb i will probably do that . , I also like your code of conduct for effective rational discussion which i have seen you post .... somewhere ..
I post it here for anyone that wants to know what i am talking about
It's based on the excellent (but pricy) book by Edward Damer.
Regarding g's comments, they were a "figurative measure." Not meant to be taken seriously, let alone read.
Have you seen Brazil?
tell me more hype ?
Remember folks, these are the republicans who claim they comply with US law. First, the entire administration is comprised of known liars and the staffers who serve them must tell the lies the bosses expect them to.
Secondly, the Patriot Act permits all of this kind of heinous behavior, and coupled with the opinions written by the US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, there is no practical limit to what they can do to citizens or anyone else for that matter. So technically, they can claim they are obeying the US law, and as the Patriot Act was passed in the fashion prescribed by the Constitution, they may stretch a bit and say it is all 'constitutionally' on the up-and-up.
Liars all. We don't do that kind of thing and don't agree to it. It's only the rogue administration.
"Liars all. We don't do that kind of thing and don't agree to it. It's only the rogue administration."
luckily the world knows that most americans are decent , moral and just people , the were brought up on the values of liberty and freedom
dont worry Nos , you will get your country back soon
It is, of course, illegal to treaten other nations with military attack.
of course Iran has rhetotic and so does israel , but from my knowledge of recent history it is not Iran that starts wars or attacks nations first
Israel (as you know) have made it clear that they will attack Iran and recent history tells me that they mean it
I wonder what the excuse would be if it wasnt for the rogue nuke stories
i am sure they would come up with something :-)
Israel will dupe the USA into attacking Iran. After all we are Israel's bitch.
Can't for the life of me figure out why this is. They really don't offer us squat, yet we finance their army?
Sad part is they will probably get their way.
Phishy , you said "Israel will dupe the USA into attacking Iran."
exactly and a perfect example of that is the lies printed in yesterdays Jerusalem Post (see post further up) is a perfect example
and see the hundreds of right wing blogs that have repeated the lies
so be sure your correct they will get their way , just as they got their way with Iraq
and it will be based on lies
just as it was with Iraq
It's hardly surprising that what remains of American credibility is going down the pan in Arab countries. The administration clearly do not know how to spin outside their own narrow arena and theatre viz. the American public and media. On the other hand there seems to be a sizeable idiotic minority in the U.S. who willingly drink in the spin and the dross. The real yardstick of American civilisation is how long it takes for the rump who still believe Bush/Rice/Rumsfelt/Cheney to shrink to 25%.
thanks for visiting Anonymous
You said "there seems to be a sizeable idiotic minority in the U.S. who willingly drink in the spin and the dross."
and dont I know , I deal with them everyday
It does please me that this Minority is shrinking , but in my view it is vital to world peace and security that no part of the Neocon agenda gains control of the US in 2008
And on that point there is still much work to be done