Perhaps you haven't had any plumbing issues lately, but the guy who does mine makes more per hour than me.

Tee hee!

Right on the website that I linked to is the bibliography for her book in pdf, quoting all the sources she used, there you can find your DATA that she got her facts from. And if you'd read the book, as opposed to going to the Cato institute blurb, you'd see that the book is based on facts which explain the monstrosity that was foisted on the Chilean people in the name of free markets.

tee hee!

Wrong again Leauki.

The 1st documented case of the Iraqis using mustard gas was at Haij Umran in august of 1983, which would put us pretty close to the 20 year mark, no? However in november of 1980 both the Iranian military and the U.S defense intelligence agency reported that the Iraqis were deploying various forms of chemical weapons in the field.

So, at the earliest that would put it at the 20 year mark, or later if the november 1980 reports are correct 23 years.

But anywho, the MASSIVE arsenal that was found by weapons inspectors in 2003?

14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity

Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol

Some 122 mm chemical warheads

Some chemical equipment

224.6 kg of expired growth media

Oh... my.... gaaawd!!!! With those 14 artillery shells he could have wiped out half the eastern seaboard!!!!

furthermore-

Scott Ritter stated that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago has long since turned to harmless substances. Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years.^[58] On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix's last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks.^[59]

I've provided sources many times in the past. But whenever I have, you state:

Lies!!!

Faulty opinion!!!!

You're making it up!!!!

hence why I rarely bother anymore.

I've given you the titles of many of the books that I've gotten my information from, from the following authors:

Chris Hedges;

"War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"

Chalmers Johnson

"Blowback" (this one was prescient as it was written in the 90's and he was dismissed as some crackpot doomsayer... but, he turned out to be right... isn't that interesting??) "Sorrows of Empire" "Nemesis, the Last Days of the American Republic"

Naomi Klein

"The Shock Doctrine"

Noam Chomsky

lots a titles.

Jimmy Carter

"Palestine- peace, not apartheid" (reading this one right now... will let ya know)

And quite frankly, if you'd do any research on these authors beyond a wikipedia entry or a blurb from the cato institute stating "don't believe these lies!!!"

you'd see that they back up their assertions with facts and list all their sources that you can then go and look up.

Because, you know, a think-tank like the cato institute or heritage foundation isn't biased at all! not. one. bit.

How does the first occurence being 20 years ago contradict the existance of a later occurence 15 years ago?
Anyways, it was less then 15 years when it was shot at israel, and the whole "Degraded gas" thing... the specific gas in question lasts mere WEEKS before degrading under proper storage conditions. (days otherwise). What was found was technicians and equipment trained and ready to produce more of it on demand. (this is probably on purpose, you want to kill the enemy and move in, not poison a large area and deal with run off for years).

 

Reading propaganda opinion works is not "research" artisym... no wonder you are so biased.

I would not put anything past him.  However, repeating an error does not make it any more authentic.

And please show where Reagan betrayed SAG.  Do you mean he did not carry their water for them?  If so, then yes, Reagan is a politician.

Not in discussions with me and never for your lies.

 

Arty is likely to try to prove the innocence of a thief by pointing to a video showing him not to steal while ignoring the video that shows him stealing.

 

 

He doesn't understand the difference between opinion and facts. I do believe him that there are books describing Pinochet's economic policies as a disaster. But that doesn't mean that they were.

 

 

Yes, bt that doesn't mean he's in the $250,000 bracket.

God Bless Phil Donahue!

In an ultra conservative nation sense, yes. Any thing the Republicans do in the guise of their "revolution" is a return to basic "reform." Whereas when Dems want change it is subversion and UnAmerican.  

the other way around stevendadelus. The liberals are calling their actions reform, and refer to conservatism as "undermining"... heck obama himself is accusing conservatives of being "divisive" in his DNC acceptance speech. How is disagreeing with him being divissive? CALLING people divisive for merely disagreeing with you is divisive.

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned in semantics: after all, bringing up "palling around with terrorists" or "who is the real  Barack Obama?" is simply a noble disagreement.

No, that is a question looking for an answer.

That one isn't even accusing of anything, just insinuating that you SHOULD bother to do some background research, that should be true of all the politicians on both sides. Don't just take their words for it, do some background research...

And palling around with terrorists happen to be the truth. Truth hurts though.

But your counter argument was "two wrongs make a right". This is not quite true either, even if the question and truthful statement were being divisive it would not justify being divisive in return. And it isn't even related to the situation at hand. Obama straight out went and said that everyone who disagrees with him is just being divisive, as if their whole purpose is to promote infighting because they are evil, rather then honestly not agreeing with what he has to say.

I don't think any liberals are trying to be divisive, they are just genuinely disagreeing with me on things. I could be justified in thinking they are being wrong, undereducated, or stupid. But why divisive? that does not just insinuate, it flat out says that their whole PURPOSE in not agreeing with me in to create conflict. That deep down in their hearts they know I am right but are too evil to let go. This is a very egocentric point of view.

And to sum things up... Why should the RIGHT be the ones to give in to the demands of the wrong? (err, left).

Yes, as I said the right never engages in divisiveness, only noble disagreement: only dems engage in class warfare because they dare storm the coffers of the super rich, who the innocent darlings "earned" every penny even those who helped them accumulate wealth worked their asses off; once one exits small town America he is grabbed up by unAmerican urbanites, etc.

Aside from it being all true despite being meant as sarcasm... how exactly is it divisive of the democrats to do so? They do so because they honestly believe that the rich don't deserve their money, that the rich got rich by being parasites, and that wealth redistribution and other communistic ideals are wonderful beautiful things. They are not trying to be divisive unless they honestly beleive themselves to be wrong and are doing it just out of spite. Which is what obama accused the conservatives of doing. (which is a divisive act in of itself)

First, what gives them the right (note not authority - that is done through the end of a gun) to storm anyone's coffers?

Second, when did I become super rich?  Or you for that matter.  The rumblings are already there (ala Clinton and his "Never worked harder in my life" to steal your money after promising to return it) that anyone not on welfare is now "super rich".