Every Time A Hedge Fund Manager Gets Shot...

[LTS TRN 2]

..An angel gets its wings...it's true.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc ... -1.2066224

Fly on!...

[Dinsdale]

So, you'd feel the same way about Soros and Steyer, right?

[mvscal]

Kind of like a reverse Darwin going on here. Fry the kid and it's a two for one deal on worthless sociopaths.

[LTS TRN 2]

Indeed, a good twofer. As for Soros, sure...somewhere an angel is waiting to fly..

[Dinsdale]

But if it wasn't for Soros lining James Hansen's pockets and getting him to go back and alter observed data, then destroy actual data in favor of his altered data, you wouldn't have a religion.

[LTS TRN 2]

Dins, your tedious half-baked Tea Bagger attack on the science behind the Climate Change alarm is total bullshit. The "altered data" was a blip. Of the scientists who agree that the threat is dire, there's no evidence of their official opinions being purchased. This is completely th opposite when we look at the so-called experts who are denying it. The Kochs and others have directly funded them in outright payments, as well as heavily funded "institutes" and "think tanks" of total whores.

As for Soros, well just like Goldman Sachs, he actually plays both sides. Why are you being distracted so easily?

[Dinsdale]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spe ... e-at-nasa/


There is no "science" behind your religion.

Once you alter data to match your (hilariously failed) predictions, it's no longer "science," it's "propaganda" -- which you spoon up like it's your last meal.

[LTS TRN 2]

Of course all of the real scientists and scientific bodies are agreed about Climate Change and its imminent threat. All you offer is some absurd Koch site--here's another ..http://www.commonsensescience.org/

The problem is...that's all you've got...paid fake sites like the Cato Institute and so forth...

Why do you support the Kochs?

[LTS TRN 2]

My heroes are the men and women with their fingers on the triggers, and hedge fund managers in their sites. As for the Kochs, they and their plutocratic brethren should be drawn and quartered first.

[LTS TRN 2]

What are you gibbering about? Hedge fund managers don't run for office==they fund candidates from both sides. The Kochs are looking to effectively drag the entire democratic process in this country into their "libertarian" cesspool of plutocratic entitlement and control. And what are you, again?

[LTS TRN 2]

But you're clearly on the side of the Kochs. And the hedge fund managers. So....are you off yer meds?

This is what you're inexplicably supporting...as a "libertarian"...

[Screw_Michigan]

Looks like that chick has a nice rack. Before all the fake blood and all.

[R-Jack]

I'm guessing its Janay Rice Skyping with her husband

[Moving Sale]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spe ... e-at-nasa/


There is no "science" behind your religion.

Once you alter data to match your (hilariously failed) predictions, it's no longer "science," it's "propaganda" -- which you spoon up like it's your last meal.

And there is no science that says oil is a clean burning fuel with today's technology. Nice dirty cult you are pimping. How's 1950 treating you?

[Dinsdale]

And there is no science that says oil is a clean burning fuel with today's technology. Nice dirty cult you are pimping. How's 1950 treating you?

Wanna point out where I said anything about oil being a clean burning fuel?

Interesting leap of logic -- since oil is dirty, it must mean a scientific theory that has proven over and over to be wrong must be right?

You just got laughed out of court.

[mvscal]

CO2 isn't dirt, assbag.

[Moving Sale]

And there is no science that says oil is a clean burning fuel with today's technology. Nice dirty cult you are pimping. How's 1950 treating you?

Wanna point out where I said anything about oil being a clean burning fuel?

Interesting leap of logic -- since oil is dirty, it must mean a scientific theory that has proven over and over to be wrong must be right?

You just got laughed out of court.

My bad. So you are against pimpimg oil as an energy source and instead prefer to use and pimp renewables. Good to know and again sorry for implying you think oil is a good energy source. Or do I still have it wrong?

[Dinsdale]

It's not ideal, and at present, it's the one we have.

When the market provides cost-effective alternatives, oil will eventually be phased out. But it's not going away any time soon -- can't just turn off that switch.

[Moving Sale]

Why not?

[LTS TRN 2]

Why not? Because the giant oil industry will do anything to prevent cheaper alternative sources.

Here's one that should have already become the standard for the world's energy needs..
https://www.apparentlyapparel.com/uploa ... teries.pdf

But istead we get this sort of strategic foot dragging
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/0 ... et-stalls/

But they'll play hard ball in a second..
http://conspiracy-theory-secrets.com/un ... us-deaths/

[Left Seater]

Why not?

A big reason was the idiot Carter. He had an opportunity to move us to natural gas which is so clean burning many of you use it on your stove and in your heater.

[Moving Sale]

Nice try. Natura gas is not renewable.

[LTS TRN 2]

There's other obvious reasons...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ ... enewable-E

[Left Seater]

Nice try. Natura gas is not renewable.

I didn't say it was. I was responding to your question to Dins about just turning the oil switch off.

If your question wasn't in response to Dins, then I misunderstood. If it was it fits.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

If it was it fits.

The only thing that "fits" Moving Sale is coming out of the boy's department at Target...

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...or Baby Gap.

[mvscal]

Why not?

Because the entire global economy would grind to halt without it. The petroleum based economy is directly responsible for the greatest period of sustained prosperity in human history.

Unless you've got something to replace it (and you don't), go fuck yourself.

[LTS TRN 2]

This is the same dented logic that insists because America's military industries are so vast and profitable, well we need some wars! Sure, we need a good Permanent War --and therefore a New Pearl Harbor to justify it.

Sure, America is a petro-state. And yes, petroleum has become a major part of the post WWII economic growth. But it's clearly time to shift. The low-hanging fruit is gone. It's no longer nearly as profitable, and the environmental damage--despite the pathetic Koch-purchased denials--is far too much to disregard.

As I pointed out, the oil industry has regularly applied its tremendous political influence to muzzle any new energy sources. This goes all the way back to Tesla himself.
https://www.apparentlyapparel.com/uploa ... teries.pdf

[Moving Sale]

Why not?

Because the entire global economy would grind to halt without it. The petroleum based economy is directly responsible for the greatest period of sustained prosperity in human history.

Unless you've got something to replace it (and you don't), go fuck yourself.

So what you are saying is your mind is made up. I won't waste my time then. Good day... You stupid brown racist.

[LTS TRN 2]

Indeed Good Day you pathetic scarecrow. Here, wave your fake flapping limbs at this...

Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case for war. More lies are being used in the aftermath

1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks

A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi’s contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.

2 Iraq and al-Qa’ida were working together

Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defence Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden’s “aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq”, it added.

Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa’ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.

3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a “reconstituted” nuclear weapons programme

The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush’s State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has “separate intelligence”. The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now “under review”.

4 Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons

The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War

Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.

6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus

Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.

7 Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox

This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.

8 US and British claims were supported by the inspectors

According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix “pointed out” that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq’s chemical, biological and “indeed the nuclear weapons programme” had been well documented by the UN. Mr Blix’s reply? “This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction,” he said last September. “If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council.” In May this year he added: “I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not.”

9 Previous weapons inspections had failed

Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had “tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully”. But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: “Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated.” Mr Blair also claimed UN inspectors “found no trace at all of Saddam’s offensive biological weapons programme” until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before the defection.

10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors

Britain’s February “dodgy dossier” claimed inspectors’ escorts were “trained to start long arguments” with other Iraqi officials while evidence was being hidden, and inspectors’ journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. “We note that access to sites has so far been without problems,” he said. : “In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew that the inspectors were coming.”

11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes

This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a serving Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the war, but in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April. He said Iraq had begun to conceal its weapons in May 2002, which meant that they could not have been used within 45 minutes.

12 The “dodgy dossier”

Mr Blair told the Commons in February, when the dossier was issued: “We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports.” It soon emerged that most of it was cribbed without attribution from three articles on the internet. Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the plagiarism committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier’s accuracy, even though it confused two Iraqi intelligence organisations, and said one moved to new headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.

13 War would be easy

Public fears of war in the US and Britain were assuaged by assurances that oppressed Iraqis would welcome the invading forces; that “demolishing Saddam Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk”, in the words of Kenneth Adelman, a senior Pentagon official in two previous Republican administrations. Resistance was patchy, but stiffer than expected, mainly from irregular forces fighting in civilian clothes. “This wasn’t the enemy we war-gamed against,” one general complained.

14 Umm Qasr

The fall of Iraq’s southernmost city and only port was announced several times before Anglo-American forces gained full control – by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain’s defence staff. “Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the US Marines and is now in coalition hands,” the Admiral announced, somewhat prematurely.

15 Basra rebellion

Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq’s second city, had risen against their oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became clear to those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat of a supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military spokesman in no position to know the truth.

16 The “rescue” of Private Jessica Lynch

Private Jessica Lynch’s “rescue” from a hospital in Nasiriya by American special forces was presented as the major “feel-good” story of the war. She was said to have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was taken to hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all her injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of firing any shot. Local medical staff had tried to return her to the Americans after Iraqi forces pulled out of the hospital, but the doctors had to turn back when US troops opened fire on them. The special forces encountered no resistance, but made sure the whole episode was filmed.

17 Troops would face chemical and biological weapons

As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they would cross a “red line”, within which Republican Guard units were authorised to use chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong.

“It was a surprise to me … that we have not uncovered weapons … in some of the forward dispersal sites,” he said. “We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there. We were simply wrong. Whether or not we’re wrong at the national level, I think still very much remains to be seen.”

18 Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD

“I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there … once we have the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them,” Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances were issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide the WMD discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq’s leading scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussein are stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin.

19 Iraq’s oil money would go to Iraqis

Tony Blair complained in Parliament that “people falsely claim that we want to seize” Iraq’s oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a Security Council resolution that would affirm “the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people”.

Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control over Iraq’s oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund.

Far from “all oil revenues” being used for the Iraqi people, the resolution continues to make deductions from Iraq’s oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

20 WMD were found

After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. “We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons,” said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: “Those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons – they’re wrong. We found them.” It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed – and that they were exported by Britain.

You gutless cowards!

[mvscal]

But it's clearly time to shift.

To what? Feel free to check back in to reality when you can affordably replace the 33 billion barrels of oil, 8 billion tons of coal and 3.5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas consumed by the world every year.

Got anything that can do that? No? Well, piss the fuck off until you do.

[LTS TRN 2]

Take a few minutes and digest this..
https://www.apparentlyapparel.com/uploa ... teries.pdf

But consider this too..
http://conspiracy-theory-secrets.com/un ... us-deaths/

It's completely real, and the notion of standing faithfully by oil and coal is pathetic. Just like standing by the lies used to invade Iraq.

[mvscal]

So, you've got nothing. That's what I thought.

[LTS TRN 2]

Oh, sorry yur pea brain can't get beyond an internal combustion engine or a coal fired steam turbine, but the muzzling of alternative energy sources is a very real and dismal history, and the amazing discovery of Tesla is similarly real.

Here's the Canadian approach to providing good filthy shale oil for the world..
http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/h ... democracy/

Fact is, you've got nothing but simplistic pissy sneers. And your hollow bullshit about Iraq is typically disgraceful in its ignorant cowardice.

[mvscal]

Oh, sorry yur pea brain can't get beyond an internal combustion engine or a coal fired steam turbine,

Yes, I quite enjoy the benefits of both and so do you. That makes you either an idiot or a hypocrite or an idiotic hypocrite. Your feeble wingnut puling to the contrary, there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels.

And, no, I'm not going to huddle in the dark in a cave to placate your absurd religion. Neither is anybody else.

[LTS TRN 2]

What a chickenshit take. No one suggested you don't use or enjoy internal combustion engines, only that you don't--and can't--think beyond it. Of course you've nothing to say about Tesla or his radiant energy discovery--or the subsequent unrelenting muzzling of such efficient and extremely inexpensive energy sources. As for a "religion," I assume you"re going into Climate Change Denial mode, pretending to have some sort of scientific basis for your cheap smears. But you don't, nor can you really ever explain why you suck the Koch brothers' ball sacks. "Libertarians" are simplistic angry assholes--sort of like Ayn Rand.

You're just standing in a cornfield...wake up..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s

[mvscal]

...only that you don't--and can't--think beyond it.

Of course I can. All you've got is unicorns and the power of positive imaging. That isn't going to get it done in the real world. Your future is diesel-electric hybrids. "Wakey, wakey!!"

Of course you've nothing to say about Tesla or his radiant energy discovery--

What am I supposed to say? Were his results ever verified or independently replicated? You know...that "sciency" procedure thingy? Oh yes...another conspiracy. Squirmy little ball of paranoia, aren't you?

[Dinsdale]

pretending to have some sort of scientific basis for your cheap smears.

Actually, he does.

A theory that's proven to be incorrect over and over and over and over and over...

it's called "science." When you adamantly believe in something that is known to be untrue, but makes you feel better about the world, it's called "religion."

I notice your cult hasn't attempted to come out with a new theory, to replace the proven-incorrect one, but instead stick to it with greater and greater fervor in proportion to the amassing evidence of the incorrectness -- which is known as "cognitive dissonance," which is why religion still thrives.

[Atomic Punk]

Why does anyone try to reason with the LTard troll? Give "it" a fact, then "it" deflects to something completely unrelated if you let "it" take you off point and change the subject. "It" is an intentional troll with no purpose other than to upset people/posters that are bored.

[matteric]

Why does anyone try to reason with the LTard troll?

Why do you wear "granny" underwear and spuge on mirrors in low end motels ?