What have you been reading?

Post #58,104 by Brandioch 10/21/02 7:31:21 PM Reply	What have you been reading? The same people who want to keep dancing on the pinhead of "its all about the oil" have no explanation for why it is that anybody gives a damn about N. Korea. If by "gives a damn", you mean "is planning an invasion", then you are WRONG. We are NOT going to invade N.K. For them the oil neatly explains the heightened aggression towards Iraq but they are unable to account for how the lack of oil does not seem to equate to a lack of interest in N. Korea. Okay, let me spell it out for you. Oil == invasion no oil == no invasion N.K. has no oil, therefore, we will not invade them. Or have you been reading something DIFFERENT? Those who argue that the Bush administration would be equally aggressive with N. Korea if they are to be taken seriously seem to conveniently disregard the fact that showing ANY concern at all about N. Korea would seem to run in the face of the its-all-about-oil argument. So, in YOUR world, if someone says that the INVASION is about the OIL, and there isn't any OIL, then there will not be ANY COVERAGE? Well, here on planet Earth, the OIL is the reason for the INVASION. Whether any other country gets any press time or not is immaterial. If N.K. was sitting on an OIL field like Iraq's, then we'd be planning an invasion. And the they ARE showing concern. Aren't they? They are NOT planning an INVASION. And you continue on with that same thread. Amazing. After all this time and all these posts, someone actually managed to misunderstand the OIL == INVASION concept.
Post #58,115 by Mike 10/21/02 7:53:06 PM Reply	But.... they WERE planning an invasion. In 1994. Weren't they? And you're not reading. Are you? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,185 by Brandioch 10/22/02 12:40:08 AM Reply	"They"? In 1994? Newsflash! Bush was "elected" in 2000. That's SIX YEARS after 1994. So there's no way "they" could have been planning an invasion of N.K. in 1994. Oh, you mean a DIFFERENT "they" in 1994. oooooookaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy. So, when I say that the current regime is planning an invasion of Iraq just because of the oil. You have trouble with the definition of "current".
Post #58,211 by Simon_Jester 10/22/02 8:17:42 AM Reply	Worse yet... back in 1994, "they" were complaining about Clinton's police-the-world policies. (Of course, if we do that now, we're anti-american)
Post #58,212 by bepatient 10/22/02 8:31:06 AM Reply	ROFLMAO You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,359 by marlowe 10/22/02 12:29:22 PM Reply	Facts from the future! Prognostications from planet Brandioch. The guy's got chutzpah, of a sort. I'm not arrogant enough to predict the future on this. (Unless you define "arrogant" as daring to disagree with the Left, in which case I'm "arrogant" and proud of it.) On second thought, I will make a prediction. I predict that whatever Dubya does about North Korea, Brandioch will put a bad spin on it, facts and logic be damned. If we don't invade, never mind the circumstances, it'll be "See! It's all about oil!" If we do invade, it'll be "unwarranted aggression" or some such nonsense, and by the way, he'll pretend he never predicted otherwise. DUBYA WAS RIGHT about North Korea. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html] The nihilists and the liars have buried truth alive in a shallow grave. "The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert\ufffds Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions." - Lileks
Post #58,378 by Mike 10/22/02 12:51:40 PM Reply	My prediction >>N.K. has no oil, therefore, we will not invade them. He will challenge your definition of "we", "them" and what it means to have oil. :-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,952 by jb4 10/23/02 6:20:21 PM 10/23/02 6:21:14 PM Reply	HUH?!? He will challenge your definition of "we", "them" and what it means to have oil. What'n'dahell is that supposed to mean? What it means "to have oil" is, rather simply: To have oil reserves on or under your soverign territory. Are you (or Duh-beyew) going to redefine the Engligh language? Good luck! I have a prediction: Nothing but hand wringing, saber rattling, and chest puffing will come of the "revelation" about NK. But we will install a puppet government in Iraq, and lo and behold, suddenly there will be oil in abundance, for the next 10 years. (But the price will NOT go down markedly.) Next? jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...) Edited by jb4 Oct. 23, 2002, 06:21:14 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #58,380 by Brandioch 10/22/02 12:53:14 PM Reply	As I've said before, the only "proof" is prediction. You can hold whatever "opinion" you want to. Real proof only exists in math. The only "proof" in the real world is being able to predict the action that will be taken (or predict which actions will NOT be taken). This annoys you because my predictions have, consistently, been proven correct. Whereas all you have are your attempts to re-write your posts to show that you supported MY position from the beginning. I predict that whatever Dubya does about North Korea, Brandioch will put a bad spin on it, facts and logic be damned. Really? Have you seen me disagree with his actions regarding N.K. yet? Ah, your mind fails to grasp the reality. I haven't faulted Bush's policy on N.K. yet. But I have used his policy regarding N.K. to show that his policy regarding Iraq is based on lies. Hmmm, seems that your predicition has already been invalidated.
Post #58,374 by Mike 10/22/02 12:46:42 PM Reply	Question >>N.K. has no oil, therefore, we will not invade them. When you say "we" do you mean.... 1) America 2) The current administration 3) Some other collective Yes the question is obtuse. But you earned this is another post. ;-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,386 by Brandioch 10/22/02 1:03:10 PM Reply	Pay attention, folks. When you say "we" do you mean.... 1) America 2) The current administration 3) Some other collective That's right, folks. Mike is incapable of following a discussion. #1. I say we are going to invade Iraq because of the OIL! #2. I say we won't invade N.K. because they don't have OIL! #3. So, now I have to define who the "we" are? "America"? You mean like the land mass between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? The one where Canada is? Our rocks and soil will not stand for foreign aggression! Or did you mean the USofA? The nation that occupies part of the North American continent? "The current administration"? Well, let's see. They WOULD be the ones calling for an invasion of Iraq. They WOULD be the ones fabricating "evidence" against Iraq. They WOULD be the ones that I've specifically identified in the past. They WOULD be the ones that said that if the UN would NOT authorize it, then we'd do it unilaterally. They WOULD be the ones that just signed the "resolution" against Iraq which authorizes the president to take whatever action, including war, against Iraq. Hmmm, maybe. "Some other collective" An unnamed collective? Whom did you have in mind? Is it POSSIBLE that I haven't been clear enough for certain individuals? Now, the NEXT question is, "Is it my fault for not communicating clearly enough or is it the individual's fault for not being able to understand?"
Post #58,541 by Mike 10/22/02 6:39:41 PM Reply	WDYHASM? (new thread) Created as a new thread titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=58540\|WDYHASM?] I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,570 by deSitter 10/22/02 7:32:14 PM Reply	Re: WDYHASM? (new thread) What is this acronym? (grumble so what if I'm n00b) -drl
Post #58,582 by Mike 10/22/02 8:04:45 PM Reply	Brandi? This is am acronym which Brandioch is very fond of using. It stands for Why Do You Hate America So Much ? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,607 by deSitter 10/22/02 9:44:06 PM Reply	Re: Brandi? Oh, I thought maybe "Why Do You Have A Stupid Mind?" Or maybe "Visual Assembler" or something like that. -drl
Post #58,621 by Mike 10/22/02 10:01:51 PM Reply	:-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,629 by boxley 10/22/02 10:32:47 PM Reply	why do you hate america so much, thankyou thankyou will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,674 by Ashton 10/23/02 12:56:55 AM Reply	It's from a Tom Tomorrow cartoon.
Post #58,676 by boxley 10/23/02 1:01:48 AM Reply	BS I created he WDYHASM proves seaches are fscked It was a request to brandi so he could fit it into a subjrct thanx, billl will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,682 by Ashton 10/23/02 2:26:56 AM Reply	The phrase! __not the &^$*#$^ abbreviation_______23Skidoo
Post #58,758 by deSitter 10/23/02 9:53:48 AM Reply	23 Skidoo 23 is telegrapher's shorthand for "go away!" - thus the phrase means "let's blow this Kool-Aid stand!". Another theory has it that young men would gather near the Flatiron Bldg. in Manhattan, on 23rd St., and howl "23 Skidoo!" when a cutie would pass by and have her skirt elevated by a passing subway train. -drl
Post #58,938 by Ashton 10/23/02 5:03:16 PM Reply	[cackle]____Oh You Kid!

Welcome to IWETHEY!