Democrat Talking Points Cost Lives

[Big Don]

Print Story ​

US aid cannot be trusted: Myanmar junta:

Agencies
Posted online: Friday, June 13, 2008 at 1321 hrs IST
Yangon, June 13:

Excerpt:
As individuals and aid agencies around the world dig into their pockets for funds to help Myanmar's cyclone victims, the country's ruling junta on Friday said that such assistance from the United States could not be trusted.
In a clear reference to the United States, a media mouthpiece for the regime warned that ‘the goodwill of a big Western nation that wants to help Myanmar with its warships was not genuine’.
Myanmar turned down humanitarian aid aboard naval vessels from the United States, as well as Great Britain and France, which had sailed toward the Southeast Asian nation after Cyclone Nargis struck May 2-3.
State media has previously said that Myanmar feared Washington was using the cover of humanitarian aid to invade the country and steal its oil reserves.
(((END EXCERPT)))
No blood for oil? No food for Burmese...

 

[elder999]

No blood for oil? No food for Burmese...

huh?

 

[Big Don]

huh?

It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.

 

[Tez3]

It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.

A lot of other countries who have said nothing about Myanmar sent aid and had it refused. The military dictatorship doesn't want any 'interferance' from any other country. You can't pin this on anyone other than the Junta.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/17/world/fg-myanmar18
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...le-foreign-aid-myanmar-cyclone-victims.html-0

 

[elder999]

Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.

Which Democrats and liberals did the screaming, whining and wailing since '91?

More importantly, why would you believe anything that the government of Myanmar says? Isn't it more likely that they simply fear a takeover by foreign govenrments under the guise of aid, whatever the reason-that they simply don't want a foreign military presence in their country, and are willing to let their own people die to keep it from happening?

Burma's oil and natural gas are extracted, refined and shipped , in part, by the French oil company Total SA, and Chevron-which got its interests in Burmese oil and gas production from its acquisition of Unocal-in fact, Chevron has about a 28% interest in Burmese oil and gas-so it's not like some of those Burmese oil dollars aren't going to the U.S. already, is it? Of course, petroleum production is a smaller part of their economy anyway....

It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.

Simple like the Ptolemaic view of the universe? Simple as in uneducated, uninformed, naive, imbecilic, idiotic, monomaniacal, fatuous, absurd or just plain simple, as in dunderheaded?

Simply wrong, once again? :lol:

 

[Tez3]

Thank you for the neg rep for my post on here whoever sent it, er..what does 'shill' mean? That's all it was, one word, give us a clue then! Rofl. love it!

 

[elder999]

Thank you for the neg rep for my post on here whoever sent it, er..what does 'shill' mean? That's all it was, one word, give us a clue then! Rofl. love it!

It wasn't me! It was the one-armed man! :lol:

 

[Rich Parsons]

It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.

Don,

I must be having a problem myself as I did not get it until you presented your argument here in the above quoted post. Before that it was a non sequitur on Democrats in relationship to this article and your post.

Thanks for the additional information on what your were thinking.

(* Goes back to notes when I was married on how to read another person's mind. And wonder's why people just do not say or write what they mean and not try to infer or assume that everyone agrees with them or knows what they are talking about. *)

 

[Brian Johns]

It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.

Just an absolutely brilliant argument.:roflmao:

 

[Sukerkin]

I wonder if we can now have an equally insightful proof that 1 + 1 does not equal 2 and that it's the fault of the American Democratic Party?

I only ask as that seems to be the level of incredulity that some members are generating at present; I don't necessarily mean right here, to be clear.

Credability is based upon having a viable position on a subject and being able to present cogent arguments to support that position. Blaming your pet hate for anything that happens in the world (that is generally perceived to be bad) does not foster credability. All it does is stir up the more calm or rational minded to no good effect.

I have only one further question before returning this thread to it's previous course - why?

Why persist in this course of action which only serves to sour the board? Peoples opinions are not going to be swayed by such action; if anything they will be strengthened in their current form.

Such entrenchment does not lead to debate and the exchange of ideas. It leads to bi-polar divisions that are all too popular on other internet fora and are thankfully absent from MT.

I would urge very strongly for those who may feel incited to respond, thus feeding these destructive fires, to remember that their own words will have no impact on the course of threads based on such premiss'. As with bindweed, the more you hack at it, the more it grows. Deny the root nourishment and it diminishes.

 

[elder999]

I would urge very strongly for those who may feel incited to respond, thus feeding these destructive fires, to remember that their own words will have no impact on the course of threads based on such premiss'. As with bindweed, the more you hack at it, the more it grows. Deny the root nourishment and it diminishes.

Yeah, you're right...

.....sometimes, though, when idiocy parades about as genius, or even just tries to present itself as quasi-intelligent, it's fun to say-and I just can't resist the compulsion-it's fun to say, in so many words, "Geez, that's idiotic...." :lol:

Of course, the idiot on question-whomever "he" might be -will only prate on with I know you are, but what am I? or some such inane, imbecilic, juvenile response, as has been amply demonstrated, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.........:lol:

Sometimes, in the words of Jack Nicholson, you have to tell them to "stop selling crazy, because we're full up here." :lol:

 

[Rich Parsons]

I wonder if we can now have an equally insightful proof that 1 + 1 does not equal 2 and that it's the fault of the American Democratic Party?

In jest please read.

Where 1 represents any real number greater than 0.5 and less than or equal to 1.5.

So if we keep track of the significant digits behind the scenes and only display the whole number.

One could say 1 + 1 = 3.

Although the actual data is 1.5 + 1.5 which would equal 3.

And as I am doing this on the internet, and Al Gore invented the internet, it is Al's and The democratic parties fault.

I am not happy with either party, so this is not an attack on either. Only just following up to a request.

 

[elder999]

In jest please read.

Where 1 represents any real number greater than 0.5 and less than or equal to 1.5.

So if we keep track of the significant digits behind the scenes and only display the whole number.

One could say 1 + 1 = 3.

Although the actual data is 1.5 + 1.5 which would equal 3.

Hell man, I can do a little better than that, and prove that 1=2.

1st Proof

X=1 set X equal to 1
X(X)=x(1) multiply both sides by x
X(X)-1=x(1)-1 subtract 1 from both sides
(x-1)(x+1)=x-1 separate left side into factors
x+1=1 divide both sides by x-1
1+1=1 substitute 1 for x
2=1

2nd Proof

(-1)(-1) = 1​

​

​

the square of -1 is 1

-1 = 1/-1​

​

​

divide both sides by -1

-1/1 = 1/-1​

​

​

identity operation; for all real (or complex) x, x = x/1

i/1 = 1/i​

​

​

take the square root of both sides (i=sqrt(-1))

i/2 = 1/2i​

​

​

divide both sides by two

i2/2 = i/2i​

​

​

multiply both sides by i

-1/2 = 1/2​

​

​

substitute -1 for i2 and 1 for i/i

-1/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2​

​

​

add 1 1/2 (3/2) to both sides

1 = 2​

​

​

3rd Proof


x2 = x+x+x+...+x (x times)
definition of x2; x not equal to zero
2x = 1+1+1+...+1 (x times)
take derivative of both sides; derivative of xn = nxn-1
2x = x
x = 1+1+1+...+1 (x times)
2 = 1
divide both sides by x (x not equal to zero)

And as I am doing this on the internet, and Al Gore invented the internet, it is Al's and The democratic parties faultI am not happy with either party, so this is not an attack on either. Only just following up to a request.

SO, 1+1 doesn't equal 2 or 3, it obviously equals 4...

And as I did this on the Internet three times, and three times 2 is 6, and three times 1 is 3, then six is nine, because 3 times 1 is six; Al Gore invented the Internet, and the March hare has no ears, and up is down, and sideways is back and forth, and a cow can't whinny, and a fish can't fly, and you can't step on the same piece of water twice.....and all of THAT is most certainly the Democrat's fault, as much as it's anyone's, anyway......

ten bucks paypalled to the first person to show the obvious errors in all three proofs, btw

 

[Big Don]

Which Democrats and liberals did the screaming, whining and wailing since '91?

Jack Cafferty Paul Begala Chris Matthews Bill Maher George Carlin Friend of Obama, Terrorist William Ayers Arianna Huffington Alec Baldwin Dennis Kucinich
Gore Vidal Murdering scum Mumia Abu-Jamal
Yeah, none of those are democrats...

 

[elder999]

Jack Cafferty Paul Begala Chris Matthews Bill Maher George Carlin Friend of Obama, Terrorist William Ayers Arianna Huffington Alec Baldwin Dennis Kucinich
Gore Vidal Murdering scum Mumia Abu-Jamal
Yeah, none of those are democrats...

Jack Cafferty on Democrats:

"It seems the Democrats are the greatest thing the Republicans have going for them sometimes."

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Republicans were using fillibuster tactics to block measures to withdraw American troops from Iraq, Cafferty declared:

"Baloney, Madam Speaker. Appropriations bills for the war must pass the House of Representatives by a simple majority. It is completely within your power to stop the funding of the war in Iraq. You have simply chosen not to do so. In fact, I did a little homework. The Speaker of the House of Representatives decides which pieces of legislation even come to the floor of the House debate and/or a vote."

Cafferty repeatedly criticizes what he calls the Democrats' lack of action to honor their campaign promises to end the Iraq War:

"The Democrats were handed a golden opportunity to challenge President Bush on the war when they were given control of Congress in the midterm elections last year. So far they have done absolutely nothing."

Should I go on, or are you enjoying that nice warm cup of STFU?

(That's Sizzling Toxic Fatuity Unction, for those of you who might think otherwise) :lol:

 

[Big Don]

Jack Cafferty on Democrats:



When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Republicans were using fillibuster tactics to block measures to withdraw American troops from Iraq, Cafferty declared:



Cafferty repeatedly criticizes what he calls the Democrats' lack of action to honor their campaign promises to end the Iraq War:



Should I go on, or are you enjoying that nice warm cup of STFU?

(That's Sizzling Toxic Fatuity Unction, for those of you who might think otherwise) :lol:

Yeah, democrats never criticize other democrats, just like republicans never criticize republicans...right. Does the name Harriet Myers ring a bell?

 

[CuongNhuka]

ten bucks paypalled to the first person to show the obvious errors in all three proofs, btw

I cann't find any obvious problems with them, they just don't make sense. But, that's probably because X+1= 2, not one.

 

[elder999]

. Does the name Harriet Myers ring a bell?

Well, no, Don, it doesn't.

Of course, Mr. Bush did try to name a woman with a strikingly similar name to the Supreme Court;it was his former White House counsel-her name is Harriet Miers-kind of hard knowing that if you get all your information from Rush Limbaugh on the radio and all.....:lol:

Is that who you meant? Hmmmmm...

Okay, show me where she's a "democratic liberal" who has been whining about how we "only go to war for oil since '91."

In fact, show me a quote on the war in Iraq from her at all....

In fact, show me how any of the people you've listed-some with links- have been whining about how we "only go to war for oil since '91."

On second thought-please don't bother. It's all obvious to me now-it's Ariana Huffington's fault that a typhoon hit Myanmar-that witch!She huffed, and she puffed, and she blew the country down! It's Jack Cafferty and Chris Matthews fault because they supported the junta takeover back in 1989 and Myanmar denied their own people aid because of Harriet Miers....what clear and lucid logic you've used here-I'm stunned.

Really

Hey, here'a a little ditty for ya:


'Who's willing to draw water for George Bush and carry it?
Harriet.
Who worked to take his DWI rap and bury it?
Harriet.
Who thinks that anyone critical of him is Judas Iscariot?
Still Harriet.
Rah! Rah! Rah!-Calvin Trillin, liberal Bush-basher, extraordinaire....

 

[Big Don]

Do you try to miss the point? If so, you do an admirable job of it.
You quoted Cafferty bitching about democrats, as if no democrat could ever complain about another, I asked if Miers name rang a bell, because, the greatest objections to her nominated came, not from democrats, but, from (GASP) republicans. Leading conservatives were livid that the president, whose every other QUALIFIED nominee was stymied by the democrat controlled Senate, that he'd nominate some woman who was CLEARLY unqualified.

 

[elder999]

Do you try to miss the point? If so, you do an admirable job of it.

Well, no, Don, I don't try to miss the point....I thought that this:

And as I did this on the Internet three times, and three times 2 is 6, and three times 1 is 3, then six is nine, because 3 times 1 is six; Al Gore invented the Internet, and the March hare has no ears, and up is down, and sideways is back and forth, and a cow can't whinny, and a fish can't fly, and you can't step on the same piece of water twice.....and all of THAT is most certainly the Democrat's fault, as much as it's anyone's, anyway......

and this:

On second thought-please don't bother. It's all obvious to me now-it's Ariana Huffington's fault that a typhoon hit Myanmar-that witch!She huffed, and she puffed, and she blew the country down! It's Jack Cafferty and Chris Matthews fault because they supported the junta takeover back in 1989 and Myanmar denied their own people aid because of Harriet Miers....what clear and lucid logic you've used here-I'm stunned.

....made it pretty clear that there is no point here worth even missing....

or, if you prefer, I know you are, but what am I? :lol: