Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

  On 9/11/2013 at 10:52 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

just an amazing watch overall, to see one of our 'adversaries' speaking english, very calmly and making Charlie Rose look like a fucking idiot in the process for an entire hour.

 

 

 

Quoted For Great Truth

the world really is upside down these days

what happened to the IQ of the average American, anyway? It's like we're all drinking "dumb water"

i think you're all just bored of typical convoluted western politics that you begin to root for all kinds of pieces of shit who know how to plainly say subversive things in front of the camera that you like to hear (i.e america is bad and hypocritical, neo imperealism, capitalist interests blablablah).

i just hope that you keep in mind that everything that they're saying in no less bullshit that the usual suspects say.

everyone is getting their brains turned into pate by junk food and being constantly bombarded with propaganda. plus the education system sucks.

  On 9/11/2013 at 12:21 PM, eugene said:

i think you're all just bored of typical convoluted western politics that you begin to root for all kinds of pieces of shit who know how to plainly say subversive things in front of the camera that you like to hear (i.e america is bad and hypocritical, neo imperealism, capitalist interests blablablah).

 

i just hope that you keep in mind that everything that they're saying in no less bullshit that the usual suspects say.

i certainly do.

I find it funny that a president of a nation giving a well spoken and combative interview is "ballsy" or "kickass", because that certainly goes to show the overall level of discourse we've had with decades of lukewarm, nepotistic leadership.

indeed. Though I actually think the way Assad comported himself in that interview was well above average, not just "better than Dubya". Or Obama, for that matter. There were a few moments in there where he said something that sounded like spin, but looked directly into the camera without blinking. I don't think Obama can do that, he just stutters and looks lost. If a guy's gonna lie, I at least want him to lie well.

In any case Assad doesn't strike me as a libertine like Gaddafi, or a slimeball like Hussein. I have no doubt he's a hard-liner capable of doing terrible things to retain power, but he's at least a snappy dresser with a professional demeanor. Don't really have a point but I was indeed impressed. I can see how at one point, some people thought he might be a kind of savior for the Middle East. The frank talk and lack of saber rattling is really refreshing.

Blurgh.. House of Saud, US, France, Qatar, Turkey, Middle Eastern spheres of influence, hegemonic Arab power, Qatar's growing regional influence and aspiration, Russia, Syria, Gas, pipelines, Europen dependency on Russian gas, France wants Qatari gas, Syria = Qatari gas gateway to Europe, Germany happy to depend on Russia, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama desperate, Arab Spring funding, Saudi-backed foreign fighters, Qatari-backed foreign fighters, funding the Syrian rebellion, divide and rule, Hezbollah vs Al Qaeda in Lebanon.

What a mess.

It's all about chemical weapons. It's easier.

  On 9/11/2013 at 10:52 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 9/11/2013 at 6:31 AM, goDel said:

So, what are your thoughts?

just an amazing watch overall, to see one of our 'adversaries' speaking english, very calmly and making Charlie Rose look like a fucking idiot in the process for an entire hour.

just for the luls

 

 

yeah, the irony was, charlie even looked like an idiot in that ahmedinedad interview a couple of years ago as well, imo. heck, some people might even think ahmedinejad sounds more candid and rational than o.

not that he is a bad interviewer. but it's just painful to watch when all those western prejudgments fall through the floor with one weird look from the interviewee: "WTF!?"

  On 9/11/2013 at 7:01 PM, lumpenprol said:

indeed. Though I actually think the way Assad comported himself in that interview was well above average, not just "better than Dubya". Or Obama, for that matter. There were a few moments in there where he said something that sounded like spin, but looked directly into the camera without blinking. I don't think Obama can do that, he just stutters and looks lost. If a guy's gonna lie, I at least want him to lie well.

 

In any case Assad doesn't strike me as a libertine like Gaddafi, or a slimeball like Hussein. I have no doubt he's a hard-liner capable of doing terrible things to retain power, but he's at least a snappy dresser with a professional demeanor. Don't really have a point but I was indeed impressed. I can see how at one point, some people thought he might be a kind of savior for the Middle East. The frank talk and lack of saber rattling is really refreshing.

im sure assad was somehow put into power the same way hussein and biggie smallz was.

Senators Voting Yes on Syria Resolution Received 83% More Money From Defense Industry

(http://maplight.org/content/73331)

https://represent.us/action/sign-open-letter-senate-foreign-relations-committee/

One dollar one vote.

where's the amount of total contributions (i.e all other sources besides defense) for each senator ?

I dunno, wanna look it up for me?

this table is pointless without it, you should have looked it up before posting. more popular candidates will naturally attract more contributions from all sources, you need percentages, not sheer numbers to get a clear picture.

I don't even know if you read the title of my link, but I'm gonna ask you to do your own homework if you want more data.

  On 9/12/2013 at 12:19 AM, eugene said:

this table is pointless without it, you should have looked it up before posting. more popular candidates will naturally attract more contributions from all sources, you need percentages, not sheer numbers to get a clear picture.

How do you think those numbers would show a different picture? I don't see how the % of defense contributions to total contributions would change anything. I think what's being demonstrated is that for each dollar contributed there is a better chance that the recipient will act in a manner favorable to the donor.

do you not understand that you lack vital information without which cannot reach that conclusions that you've made ? it could be that mccain was donated a million bucks from "veterans for peace" (made up) foundation in addition to his defense contribution, and Jim Risch's 14000$ defense contribution is the only contribution made to his campaign. who's more pro defense corporation in this case ?

Of course I understand we lack information. Fucks sake, it was just a link.

Thanks for not doing any of the data legwork yourself btw eugene, lol. I am indeed looking at donor demographics right now, it's pretty interesting stuff. Unfortunately I don't really feel like making you a spreadsheet.

edit: I'd like to be nice, sorry for the "it's stupid" comment. I just get frustrated with having the same argument over and over, ten minutes after I post, with little spaces before the question marks. It's really not helpful to go on 3 page tangents every time I try to share a link. yeesh.

i really don't understand this tactic from, you share a link plus a premade letter with a bombastic, world changing and alarming statement and when i challenge it, it becomes just some silly, insignificant link, like who cares, it's just internet .

lol

  On 9/12/2013 at 12:46 AM, eugene said:

i really don't understand this tactic from, you share a link plus a premade letter with a bombastic, world changing and alarming statement and when i challenge it, it becomes just some silly, insignificant link, like who cares, it's just internet .

No, you are asking me (repeatedly, you always do) to have -all- of the facts on a subject, and then you follow with "you don't know, so you cannot speculate." I'll just go ahead and post "this link does not necessarily reflect the views of luke viia and Watmm America Haters United" each time I want to share a link from now on, k eugene? If you want to "challenge" something, how about a bit more than just "that's not enough info, I want more info" - do it yourself, please. It's not that I'm not interested. It's that I've carried on long ass conversations with you and gotten nowhere because you insist that "we cannot speculate" while simultaneously doing nothing to find the data you say you would like to have; rather you just tend to believe statements when it suits you, and say "we cannot know if that's true" when it doesn't. The mind boggles. At least I understand your tactic though, it must be frustrating to think that your "challenges" are going unnoticed.

Eugene, I'll just say that your objection is good and rigorous in theory. But the likelihood of finding examples like the hypothetical one you posited are extremely small, and in my limited research in the last half-hour the data I received only seemed to support the implicit conclusion of Luke's link.

But I will do some more research and then post my conclusion in a bit.

BTW, my only conclusion here is that money talks.

you made a statement so you have to back it up, it just doesn't hold any water in its current form and i explained why, i just really can't stand these troll-statistics that are supposed to back super significant claims. and it's not like i asked for something unfalsifiable or impossible to attain.

he didnt make a statement, he shared a link.

if the information in the link gives rise to questions then so be it. but time and again your contribution is to crush conversation with "not enough info," or offensively belittling the link or the poster, or just generally being smug etc.

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:02 AM, luke viia said:

BTW, my only conclusion here is that money talks.

and you derive it from that link you posted ?

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:03 AM, eugene said:

you made a statement so you have to back it up, it just doesn't hold any water in its current form and i explained why, i just really can't stand these troll-statistics that are supposed to back super significant claims. and it's not like i asked for something unfalsifiable or impossible to attain.

What statement was that?