Justice

Either he's joking and these guys are just taking it out of context (Which seems pretty likely right now) or this is utterly fucked up. Oh yeah, and isn't this fluff?

Hey, it's just Powerplay with a new T-Shirt. But the compliment is accepted.

A fair rebuttal. I understand that geologists do know something of climate change, a man studying catalsymic and appoclyptic change would probably know something, too. Either way, it's neither's specialty, and I doubt that it truly should come off as a fault since all they are are analyzing where other people stand rather than new data. But this is just how I look at it. I actually read the Crooked Timbers blog, and the comments discussion is very interesting. At first, it did seem to me that Peiser hadn't done much, though some of the rebuttals to it were okay enough. But if you really read the comments, it kinda casts doubt on both studies, consider that the ones in question were likely in Oreskes' study as well. I find it a bit presumptious that the author of the blog instantly cast down Peiser for possible faulty methodology without knowing anything about Oreskes' own methodology. I'll take note of your 'think tank' mention, but that doesn't mean Oreskes is clear, either. People gravitate to groups that agree with them. Why did Peiser get hired by that think tank? Probably because he agreed with them long before they hired him. Just because they got hired out by an oil company doesn't mean their opinion is automatically tainted: It just means that they have high-profile opinions that might be listened to. It's the same with any profession: If you find a smart guy who agrees with you, take him to your side. Just as well, Oreskes is a Environmental History professor. I don't think I have yet to meet a non-liberal one in my college career (My own had been teaching the Environmental History class at our college since Earth Day and is massively left), and I don't really think that Oreskes is any different. The nice thing about being liberal in college is that yuo don't need to get hired by a company to be in strong company, especially in her department. Remember the study from Berkley that said Concservatives were Hardwired differently than normal people? You don't need to go to outside sources when you are already amongest friends. Overall, my entire view on this situation is: Global Warming is happening. We are a part of it. How big a part, and how unnatural the cycle has yet to be proven. I'd like to see some long range studies done, because right now what we are doing is similar to saying a person who is sweating is obviously unhealthy: That might be the case, but we lack the knowledge of what was going on before to really make a good, well-informed decision.

I didn't say that the signing of the PNAC was the start of the (hypothetical) conspiracy. Its elements had been in the works for years: This book written in 1996 explains the "shock and awe" strategy, for example. ... You know that "Blitzkrieg" was also a strategy developed by two Brits back in 1935, right? OMFG CONSPIRACY! Apparently we aren't allowed to use the best tactics because they are in print or something...

I only meant to concentrate on the last line, but I just wanted to get to bed. Oops. Uh huh? I'd agree with you if he were saying something new about it, I'd agree. But he's not. He's simply analyizing whether every climatologist explicitly believes that climate change is coming vis a vis humans or not, not making an independent decision. You keep talking as though he's disproving the idea of global warming, missing the entire function of what he was doing was rather To give you the hypocrasy you might have missed in your blind rush to prove it all wrong: Naomi Oreskes Published by Science with favorable looks on the stance good 'ole Benny debunks, published in December. Oddly enough she isn't a climatologist either. She's a geologist and historian, with an environmental background. Peiser major is Social Anthropology, but his main research focus is into 'appocolyptic catastrophes' and how humans react to them. He probably knows just as much on the subject as Naomi did. Face it, being a OMG SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGIST means little to shit when you are: A) Not providing a new viewpoint on the subject, but simply eliminating the oft-mistaken idea that there is an overwhelming agreement on the subject. B) A recent contemporary of you with just about as much experience in the same field published an article directly contradicting yours. Of course, this could be the case. Considering, though, that he trawled the same database as Oreskes, and followed along what seems to be a similar methodology, it's very suspicious that they would turn down one but not the other. In all likelihood, if one is found to be scientifically unsound due to methodology or otherwise, the same is true for the other. Which leads us back to the same point: Holy shit, not everyone agrees and it is far from universal fact that the Earth warming is the doomsday siren. Perhaps that's the best way to put it all.

Uh, congrats, you've stated the completely obvious? Like Mike has said, this sort of policy has been in line since the Clinton Administration. Having a STARTLING MEMO detailing how we already had plans and were already getting logistics in place doesn't really surprise me. Why? Despite the lack of a good rebuilding effort, good campaign plans aren't just drawn up overnight. The reason we win these conflicts is because we plan them out long in advance. I detailed a long time ago why Iraq was a threat to Mid East stability (The one where you miserably fizzled out trying to say that we should have let the Iraqis do it on their own ten years down the line), so it's really not a big jump to think that they were already in the planning stages. Hell, that's probably the most reassuring news I've heard in a while about our military. If there's the possibility of an invasion, they start planning it months in advance. Thank the Lord! Hopefully they'll spend that much time on the rebuilding phase next time. So, I guess the answer to the title of this is "More fun with non-reporting" because, put quite simply, this is non-news.

Argumentative flaws: That's not why they turned down his research; they said it was 'widely dispersed on the internet'. And what does it matter if he's a social anthropologist? He was simply taking a survey that said "Well, most climatologists don't believe that global warming is something that's actually happening". He wasn't actually making a judgement on the problem or not, he was simply showing that Eric's claim of "A vast majority believe that this is happening and is the reason why". What the heck is wrong with a social anthropologist doing a fucking survey? Dude, sloppy sloppy work.

Stop whining. Stop posting out-of-date articles.

Why are you posting an article that is two years old? Am I the only one who noticed this?

I think it all comes down to the fact that while yes, we are putting more and more up into the atmosphere, C02 is such a shitty, shitty greenhouse gas, and that it accounts for so very very little, that C02 emissions is just really an environmental McGuffin. I think that's what everyone but you and NoCal seemed to have realized. And again, this study proves shit unless it goes as far back to something like the Middle Ages so we can get an accurate picture of what's going on.

I agree a lot with that. There isn't as much flash, but the spots are better (Vader pulling out the "I'm gonna fuck you up by tossing shit at you is still one of the most bad mother-fucker scenes I've ever watched) and the story is so much deeper and emotional. They mean so much more than eye candy, which some of the fight-scenes in the prequels feel like. All the lightsaber fights in the originals feel like they mean something more than just an action scene. Yoda/Dooku, the first quick snippet between Qui-Gon and Maul in TPM, and maybe even Maul/Obi-Wan/Qui-Gon in TPM because either the villians aren't built up enough, or the reason why they are fighting just seems transparent at times. When Obi-Wan and Vader fight, it means something, even if it isn't the fanciest. The subtext behind the fighting means more to me than the fighting itself. That said, I agree with most of Kotzen's ratings, perhaps though a higher one on the Obi/Vader fight because it was what started it all and it had some excellent story behind it.

Unless you were going by the name Justice aswell as Jingus, you didn't shred shit. I read the whole thread and i'm still leaning towards that it was in fact a plane. And thusly I appear! There's another one, a 7-pager I believe just before this that Jingus had more involvement in. And the idea that Bush somehow planned it in the, oh, 8 months he was in office is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If he had this all planned so that he could go into Iraq, then why attack Afganistan first? For what reason, what logic? Because the Taliban was an easier target and Afghanistan a better base of Mideastern operations from which to move troops into the area? Also, if you're going by the 'everything from 9/11 on has been predetermined' route, then it would logically make sense to ravage Afghanistan and create more enemies, thereby further fueling insurgency and anti-American sentiment. Remember, the goal (according to this strategy) is for Republicans to gain political dominance by striking fear in the hearts of the American people by presenting a near-infinite number of bogeymen. To destabilize the region creates more people willing to fight the insurgency, which perpetuates the threat of terror, which keeps Bush's policies looking strong, which keeps Republicans in power. It's tough to be a war President if you have no enemies to fight. If he planned it as such, why waste resources on Afganistan, though? Afganistan is on the other side of Iran, making it a shitty shitty staging point for anything. Just simply invading Iraq outright makes more sense. Invading IRaq would have done everything Afganistan did without any problem. If anything, Afganistan is a huge extra step. It just doesn't make sense.

Unless you were going by the name Justice aswell as Jingus, you didn't shred shit. I read the whole thread and i'm still leaning towards that it was in fact a plane. And thusly I appear! There's another one, a 7-pager I believe just before this that Jingus had more involvement in. And the idea that Bush somehow planned it in the, oh, 8 months he was in office is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If he had this all planned so that he could go into Iraq, then why attack Afganistan first? For what reason, what logic?

I thought it was fine, personally. I just re-read the book only a few days ago, and while it does deviate MAJORLY at points, I'm okay with it for a few reasons: 1) The great majority of this WAS written by Adams. Bitch and moan as much as you want about the changes, yes, they were made, but many of the changes were made by Adams himself. This script is not new, it's fairly old. 2)Of course some things had to be abridged because they might not fit properly in a movie, but overall it captures exactly the feel it should have. It was fairly witty, fun, and it kept my interest. I only have two problems. The Sperm Whale scene and the Factory Floor are just incredibly well done parts. My only problems: 1) The love story. It just seemed to obviously shoe-horned in. It could have been done a bit better I think. Or at least differently, a bit more subtle and less forced. :\ 2) Earth, Mk 2, stays and they 'restart'. I know that Earth makes a later appearance, but it's not Mk 2, it's one created by the Dolphins in the "Save the Earth" campaign (At least, that's what I thought). It just seemed way too... climactic for a story that shouldn't really have a climax. It's against the feel of the book. But... oh well. Should be interesting to see if there's a sequel. Overall, a good ride, I'd definitely recommend it. It's different from the book, but don't panic: The characters are still there and the pulse is still there. Just now even veterans don't quite know what to expect.

Well I'll be damned: Sharpie really put down Jake. Color me surprised.

Heh. Personally, I didn't find Ethan all that funny. It's like "OMFG CHRISTOPHER WALKEN~!" Hell, I didn't even think he was that funny in that whole rp. Tamu's was good, definitely the best of the lot. I'd argue that last week's was much better, but at least Tamu is using his own character as the star rather than crutching it two dozen celebrities. Jake and Ethan seem to be getting mega-pushes, and frankly it is really irritating me. I wasn't impressed with Ethan's gimmick in the first place, and he has yet to really deliver anything other than the aforementioned 'I smoulder with generic anger' bit. Jake Matthews has, in my opinion, blown for the last two weeks, yet I'm sure he's going to get the same comments as before. But hey, speaking to the choir, right?

FactCheck.org and Spinsanity (RIP.) That made me want to cry. Such a great, great site.

How the hell can Jake Matthews of all people be leading the pack? That just doesn't ring at all right to me...

I honestly say it's a case by case basis. No matter where you look, there will be some honest articles, and there will be some blantantly biased ones. The BBC? Eh, they swing back and forth from presenting an honest view and presenting "their" view. The same can be said for any source, just with varying frequency. The blog posts that I posted show books that document this sort of stuff (one of which from the inside looking out). I could say I've looked the same way at your own arguments and said "You know, they might have a point", then I think of all the sources that document things like the forced collectivization of Nicuraugian farms and such which pushes myself back. I believe the poster because they are a fairly large critic of American intervention in Central America. But maybe that's not enough for you. I think my biggest point that I've always tried to get across to you is that we've made mistakes in the past. But there were better reasons than "Well let's just create misery" like you seem to want to portray it as. Nicaragua is perhaps the best example of this: The Somozas were bad, the Contras were horrible. But the Sandinistas weren't any better, and there is documentation that shows this. It's not this black and white situation, it was straight gray. Honestly, I'll maintain that we should have actively intervined, we shouldn't have been pussy-footing around it and just done it right. With how Communist and Socialist (Don't even try to claim that they weren't, many were self-proclaimed Marxists) often end up as corrupt and destructive machines, it was perhaps the right decision, but the wrong follow-through.

I'd argue you are assuming too much. There are neighborhoods where there aren't any white kids. Of course these areas are smaller in number, but so are African Americans in general. It all evens out. So unless you have any actual proof, I'd say you land pretty far off base with that assumption.

First off, read Breaking Faith. Here's a pretty good review from a guy who actually used to SUPPORT them.http://ticokid.blogs.com/life_in_central_a...ca/sandinistas/]Link[/url] Of course the Sandinistas started off as an idealistic revolution, but as it came about, the real leaders showed their true colors and became just as bad as the Somozas. Wow, how all Communist regiemes seem to end up: fighting for a good cause, but becoming just as bad as their enemies. Anyone else see that pattern? And Mike took care of Venezuela. Uh, all you did was try to shift blame onto the CIA. Where is the proof that they weren't communists? Oh dear God, no one can take a joke... Look, the world in GENERAL was massively opposed. There wasn't a "Huge difference" in opposition compared to Germany, France, or anywhere else. It was all the same, and I really don't care. If they want to blame us for all the mistakes of their past, go ahead. They still didn't have any more 'ardent opposition' than anywhere else in the world. So you are for the Status Quo? Good for you. Irreparably fucked? Uh... okay then. If you like ignoring progress being made towards repair and self-government, I suppose you could say that. Though there isn't much indication that the situation is any worse for the people when they were under the terror-net of Saddam. They are forming a Constitution, a new democratic government, and we have people like you running around saying "DEAR GOD IT'S ALL FUCKED!" Seriously, give an honest reason why it's 'irreparably fucked', because I have cautious optimism about the entire situation and I can't see how it's honestly decided one way or another. And Afganistan was a mess long before we came in, moreso than it is now. Without any sort of internal infrastructure, it's going to be a while until big improvements come. But I'm sure that was on the Taliban Budget, right? Just after explosives to demolish Buddhist Temples and statues... It's misguided because we tried to delay IMMEDIATE elections. You bitch and moan about how horridly the elections went, how well do you think they would have gone two years ago when there was a massive outcry for it? And perhaps we were more referring to Sadr than Sistani when it came to violence. I'm glad that Sistani did try, but Sadr didn't. Understand that indeed, there are Iraqis out there who could indeed fall under the word 'evil'. This is laughable, because you honestly have no clue what carpet-bombing actually is other than a term to throw around when talking about the 'devestation of the Iraqi People'. Fallujah was almost completely abandoned when we went in. Only around 10% of it's population was still left in it. It's great that you simply assume that the only 10% that would have stayed were the helpless women and children, you were obviously not paying attention to the hundreds of fire-fights going on. And no, you can not have a 'firefight' when only one side is firing. Uh, RJ said there are scholars who don't believe that. He didn't say that few scholars did, or few geniune scholars that did. He just said: Which shows how apt you are to twist facts around to your own extreme world view. But congrats anyways!

G0R0 IZ SAYINGZ OR NASHUNAL ANTHUMB SHUOLD BE SAILZ AWAY BY ENYAZ.

Rather than criticize Mike's opinions, I simply ask that he explain, step-by-step, how he believes that Reagan and Bush accomplished this. I feel that by doing so, we can move beyond generalizations and establish how the facts of the Reagan and Bush presidencies conform with Mike's interpretation of their results. Why not, you know, read a history book? -=Mike Speaking as someone who actually does read history books, allow me to inform you many historians disagree on how much Reagan's policies impacted the decline of the Soviet Union. Some even give credit to other people. It is difficult to confirm your claims without establishing some basic facts. It isn't logical to assume every history book will validate your opinion. He does have a point. There is some merit to saying Brezhnev's buildup before Reagan certainly did speed things up. Perhaps the most accurate way of saying it is "The USSR was going to fall sooner or later, Reagan simply made it sooner."

Uh, looking purely statistically, you're wrong. There are way more than twice as many whites in the US than blacks, so technically a higher number of the black population commit. When you are saying stuff like this, percentages do matter. Especially when you are talking behavior within a certain population. Plus, the actual numbers are: A lot closer than ya think. ^^^ Uh, Ripper?

Removing the Sandinistas was the right move. Using the Contras was the wrong one. If we had a problem in the region (Which, considering the Sandinistas, was fairly justified), we should have been honest about it and done it ourselves. Sure, people like you would have bitched about "OMG SETTING UP A US FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT" but at least we could have done it right from the get-go. So you don't recognize the killings of farmers who didn't want to collectivize, the massive amount of 'political' prisoners who were taken and tortured, villages where dissidents dug their own graves before they were shot in them? Hey, at least you recognize the forced relocation and razing of the Pacific Indians in a half-hearted, roundabout way. You're almost there! And I'm sure you'll list off everything that the Sandinistas had on their platform, but that sort of gets lost in all the forced volunteerism under threat of death or imprisonment, doesn't it? *Shrugs* Because Bush isn't Reagan would seem the simplest answer. That, and the circumstances of the wars would seem to vary greatly. Did you know that there was less support for the 7 Days War in South America than the Kashmir conflict? Well, perhaps they differ because they are completely different conflicts... This is perhaps the most hilariously misguided statement of the day. Are these the same elections that you've called illegitimate for a while now? Wouldn't it have been a good thing if we had tried to stabilize the entire area so 'true' elections could be held? Or is this another one of your many hypocritical statements that tend to surface? And yes, we are still bombing them back to the stone age. It's so very evident today. It couldn't possibly be a bitter and deluded insurgency, could it? Perhaps I'm the one missing the carpet bombings of Fallujah.