60 Minutes

[Anonymous]

are you deaf?

What? I can't hear hypocrisy.

 

[Anonymous]

"how do you go from making the implication that i'm an aspiring elitist to a few words later inferring that my proper place is on the streets with the occupy crowd, who happen to be the ones protesting against the elites and wealth inequality?"

Did you not also read, I called you a hypocrite? See, that's how hypocrisy works. You preach about the evils of something while being guilty of this so-called evil.

If you want to quit playing the victim of society and start taking responsibility to your lot in life, then I will be more than happy to debate you in a rational, thoughtful way. As it stands now, you just come off as an educated fool.

Raise your game.

is that the best you can serve up?
well then...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B01o2xtJwgk

i was expecting something tastier than a bland dish.

/culled

 

[Anonymous]

What? I can't hear hypocrisy.

that was your best so far.

but, you have to try harder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CgkWmKJLuE

 

[Anonymous]

Looking at you, France, for the model that screwed the world.

Suez and Vivendi have close ties to the French government; the water companies appear to be crucial sources of income for the political parties, particularly Chirac's Rassemblement pour la République (RPR). In 2000, in fact, Monod, 69, left Suez and moved into the Elysée Palace, becoming a senior adviser to Chirac.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2003/02/04/5711/water-and-power-french-connection

Looks and tastes like Congress to me. Same old boring revolving door policy.



Australia - In 1998, the water in Sydney, was contaminated with high levels of giardia and cryptosporidium shortly after its water was overtaken by Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux.

Canada - At least seven people died as a result of E. coli bacteria in Walkerton, Ontario, after water testing had been privatized by A&L Labs. The company treated the test results as "confidential intellectual property" and did not make them public.

Morocco - Consumers saw the price of water increase threefold after the water service was privatized in Casablanca.

Argentina - When a Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux subsidiary purchased the state-run water company Obras Sanitarias de la Nacion, water rates doubled but water quality deteriorated. The company was forced to leave the country when residents refused to pay their bills.

Britain - Water and sewage bills increased 67 percent between 1989 and 1995. The rate at which people's services were disconnected rose by 177 percent.

New Zealand - Citizens took to the streets to protest the commercialization of water.

South Africa - Water became inaccessible, unaffordable, and unsafe after the water supply was privatized by Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux in Johannesburg. Cholera infections became widespread and thousands of people were disconnected from their supply of water.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/VANOVEDR/


Here's a better solution: if you're running a business, try to run it like a professional outfit, and not some kind of comedy corner-cutting farce.

I agree... America is better. We know how to get shit done right!

 

[Anonymous]

I agree... America is better. We know how to get shit done right!

Is that so?

Wasn't it less than 7 years ago, that the TBTF companies and banks received > $600 billon in bail-out funds.

In a real game of capitalism, they were supposed to collapse and go out of business.

Now you may ask, who really runs the government?
Because, it's certainly not "we the people"


2 more examples ring a bell:

Solyndra
CGI Federal


Oh, and the military industrial complex, but let's not go there...

 

[Anonymous]

Is that so?

Wasn't it less than 7 years ago, that the TBTF companies and banks received > $600 billon in bail-out funds.

In a real game of capitalism, they were supposed to collapse and go out of business.

Now you may ask, who really runs the government?
Because, it's certainly not "we the people"


2 more examples ring a bell:

Solyndra
CGI Federal


Oh, and the military industrial complex, but let's not go there...

I agree... America is the best, and we would be much better if we just practiced less government interference in free-markets.

However, we disagree about our military. A strong military is fundamental and necessary for any legitimate government.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree... America is the best, and we would be much better if we just practiced less government interference in free-markets.

However, we disagree about our military. A strong military is fundamental and necessary for any legitimate government.

Define "strong military".
I could interpret that two ways: the American version or the Swiss version.



But, I understand where you're coming from.

When a centralized government is in the hands of a powerful few...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKROM2y6pwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkKTvGeikJw
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4478966/gore-vidal-power-elite-education

When government is in our hands, the hands of the people, of workers, of communities, of regions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVDkkOAOtV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX25PDBb708
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE

 

[Anonymous]

I agree... America is better. We know how to get shit done right!

Yeah we are great at starting wars! We need to develop our health care system so outrageous pricing can't occur (i.e., government price controls on all segments of the marketplace). Instead of building bombs, tanks, nukes let's start helping everybody to have a decent home, decent food, and decent healthcare!

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah we are great at starting wars! We need to develop our health care system so outrageous pricing can't occur (i.e., government price controls on all segments of the marketplace). Instead of building bombs, tanks, nukes let's start helping everybody to have a decent home, decent food, and decent healthcare!

Which war did we start, you uneducated MORON?

 

[Anonymous]

Define "strong military".
I could interpret that two ways: the American version or the Swiss version.



But, I understand where you're coming from.

When a centralized government is in the hands of a powerful few...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKROM2y6pwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkKTvGeikJw
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4478966/gore-vidal-power-elite-education

When government is in our hands, the hands of the people, of workers, of communities, of regions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVDkkOAOtV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX25PDBb708
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE

Yeah.... Swiss and strong military, see the thing about that is, it is a conflict of terms. The Swiss are a bunch of irrelevant, inconsequential nothings militarily speaking.

 

[Anonymous]

Define "strong military".
I could interpret that two ways: the American version or the Swiss version.



But, I understand where you're coming from.

When a centralized government is in the hands of a powerful few...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKROM2y6pwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkKTvGeikJw
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4478966/gore-vidal-power-elite-education

When government is in our hands, the hands of the people, of workers, of communities, of regions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVDkkOAOtV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX25PDBb708
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE

I apologize... I can not believe that I even respond to someone who's only apparent source of information is quaint youtube videos. Pathetic.

 

[Anonymous]

Which war did we start, you uneducated MORON?

The last war in Iraq you fucking moron.

 

[Anonymous]

The last war in Iraq you fucking moron.

The Korean War and the Vietnam wars.

 

[Anonymous]

The Korean War and the Vietnam wars.

The American Revolution (1775-1783).

 

[Anonymous]

The Korean War and the Vietnam wars.

Apparent product of public schools. Learn history.

 

[Anonymous]

The last war in Iraq you fucking moron.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

At the Azores conference of 16 March, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Spanish prime minister José María Aznar as well as Portuguese prime minister José Manuel Barroso who hosted the meeting, announced the imminent deadline of 17 March for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought.

Hopefully you can digest all this history that somehow you missed.

 

[Anonymous]

Apparent product of public schools. Learn history.

It is very difficult to criticize one particular side for starting the Korean and Vietnam Wars. All involved sides share responsibility.

However, US involvement was an essential ingredient in prolonging both wars, contributing to the increased loss of lives, limbs, and minds.

 

[Anonymous]

The last war in Iraq you fucking moron.

not only do we start wars, but we sell them based on lies.

remember Operation Desert Storm?

"If Nayirah's outrageous lie had been exposed at the time it was told, it might have at least caused some in Congress and the news media to soberly reevaluate the extent to which they were being skillfully manipulated to support military action. Public opinion was deeply divided on Bush's Gulf policy. As late as December 1990, a New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that 48 percent of the American people wanted Bush to wait before taking any action if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait by Bush's January 15 deadline. On January 12, the US Senate voted by a narrow, five-vote margin to support the Bush administration in a declaration of war. Given the narrowness of the vote, the babies-thrown-from-incubators story may have turned the tide in Bush's favor.

Following the war, human rights investigators attempted to confirm Nayirah's story and could find no witnesses or other evidence to support it. Amnesty International, which had fallen for the story, was forced to issue an embarrassing retraction. Nayirah herself was unavailable for comment. "This is the first allegation I've had that she was the ambassador's daughter," said Human Rights Caucus co-chair John Porter. "Yes, I think people ... were entitled to know the source of her testimony." When journalists for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation asked Nasir al-Sabah for permission to question Nayirah about her story, the ambassador angrily refused."


http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html
http://vimeo.com/13977975

 

[Anonymous]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

At the Azores conference of 16 March, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Spanish prime minister José María Aznar as well as Portuguese prime minister José Manuel Barroso who hosted the meeting, announced the imminent deadline of 17 March for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought.

Hopefully you can digest all this history that somehow you missed.

US Senate Resolution 28, passed on Jan. 29, 2003, included the following:

"United Nations Security Resolution 1441 (2002) does not authorize the use of force but instead stipulates that the Security Council will convene immediately to consider any failure on the part of Iraq to comply with the Resolution."
http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/senateres28_1-29-2003.pdf


The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq


While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.”

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.

In the lead-up to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

books.google.com/books?isbn=0199595305

 

[Anonymous]

I apologize... I can not believe that I even respond to someone who's only apparent source of information is quaint youtube videos. Pathetic.

yet, you continue to respond.

regarding the videos,

a) you don't watch them
and
b) you don't bother challenging the underlying sources of information/knowledge

so, what's your purpose?

to play the role of the pre-pubescent teen who discovered the art of the anonymous taunt over the internet?

i know it can be fun, but seriously, try to improve your craft.