Pres. Kerry's NASA

Sander Vesik wrote:
: Gregg Germain wrote:
:
: I think the issue to adherents of the Euros for oil pretext for the
: war was not so much that Saddam's taking Euros would cause a collapse
: of the US dollar...but that if Saddam's example caused other nations
: to also sell their oil in Euros, THEN it becomes a problem for the
: US.

: In what way? Do you know how the commodities markets work?

Do me a favor would you?

READ.

This isn't MY theory I'm trying to defend. It's a theory I've read
about from economists. That's why I write above:

"I think the issue to adherents of the Euros for oil pretext...."

If you wish to demolish the theory you'd have to ask that question of
them - not me.



:
: And the notion explains the French and German opposition to the war:
:
: they are looking to cause that switch to happen.
:

: Yeah right.

When you learn to read, I'll take wha tyou have to say seriously.



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:58:25 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Let's talk about the three branches of govt: executive, judical and
: : legistative. Who has majority control of the exexutive? Republicans.
: : Who has majority control of the legislative? Republicans. Who has
: : majority control of the judicial? Republicans.
:
: : The "Republicans" control the judiciary? Is that where gay marriage
: : comes from? Who knew?
:
: They got W in the White House didn't they?

: The judiciary is much more than the Supreme Court. And he would have
: gotten into the White House anyway--it just would have taken longer.

Right, there are state and local level courts. No, he got in do to the
Republican majority that exists on the Supreme Court on elsewhere.

I also forgot to mention that the majority of state govenors are
Republicans, further underpinning my claim that there is no check and
balance in government now as the vast majority of those in power in
government are Republicans. The party checks itself to some degree. But,
mark my word, a loss of the gay marriage ban amendment will only get the
abortion issue back into the forefront.

: And as far as the gay marriages
: goes, they won't get an amendment, but be certain that lists, like those
: from the McCarthy era in the 50s, will exist for gays based upon those
: marriages and the paper trail that they generate. Conservatives can't wait
: to discriminate the sexual orientation issue based upon the new
: documentation that gay marriages creates.

: Yes, those evil conservatives. What nefarious scheme will they hatch
: next?

Isn't 'evil conservative' redundant? And as far as any scheme goes, why
don't you tell me? You seem like quite the CPAC stooge to me.

: : Now where is your
: : checks and balances?
:
: : The same place they've always been. Checks and balances have nothing
: : to do with political parties.
:
: Sure they do.

: No, checks and balances are one branch of government against another,
: not one party against another. The founders didn't even contemplate a
: two-party system.

But they did comtemplate elections, and every four years at that. They
realized that people had different ideas and allowed that to play itself
out into the electoral process. Hence, checks and balances.

I do not doubt that the three branches of the governemnt, of which the
Republicans hold a majority, also perform, or at least are suppose to,
a system of checks and balances.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:13:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : It's odd how radical teens convert to more conservative politics once
: : they get a job, house, kids, etc...
:
: : Actually, it's not odd at all.
:
: I guess older liberal Democrats are simply the odd ones in your book?

: Yes.

Sorry that you let your beliefs get in the way of your ability to learn
things.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:00:47 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : The problem with your argument is this: If Saddam could sell all his oil
: : for euros, then why need dollars?
:
: : Because he might be able to get even more dollars for it.
:
: Was that the case?

: No, but it could have been, if all we were interested in, as you
: continue to foolishly state, was oil.

It is stated, but not foolishly. The foolish part is your inability to
believe other than what you are spoonfed.

: : If he could not sell all his oil and get
: : euros, then he would take dollars - makes sense. Doesn't having euros
: : being his first choice of currency put the US in a spot?
:
: : It was not his first choice in currency. It was his *only* choice in
: : currency. It was all part of the "oil for palaces" program overseen
: : by a corrupt UN.
:
: Provide a reference where the UN forced Saddam to take euros for oil.

: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/in...rtner=USERLAND

: Oh, wait. That says that he took millions in *dollars* for oil. So
: much for your stupid theory. Or is the New York Times one of those
: evil right-wing rags to which you pay no attention?

More at so much for the foolish theories that the NYT is a liberal
newspaper. The article says more about the abuse of the food for oil plan
and says nothing about actual oil deals.

: And please provide a reference where I said that the UN forced Saddam
: to take Euros for oil. They *allowed* him to, they didn't force him.

Did you notice that NONE of the crooks came from the US, but did from all
other parts of the world? I wonder which US companies Saddam was skimming
$ from, as is your claim. The Times article seemed to have left that part
out.

Eric

Alexander Sheppard ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in message ...
: George William Herbert ) wrote:
: : Coridon Henshaw (chenshawREMOVE wrote:
: : (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: : We will never give another nation a veto over our national security.
: :
: : Hundreds of millions of people have been arbitrarily imprisoned, killed in
: : battle, brutally tortured, or dumped in unmarked mass graves from Siberia
: : to South Africa and Arnhem to Zimbabwe as a result of leaders who believed
: : that nothing and no one should have a veto over their national security.
: :
: : Are the likes of Stalin and Mugabe really the kind of role models you
: : believe the United States ought to emulate?
:
: : The United States does not believe that nothing and no one should have
: : a veto over our national security.
:
: : We have three branches of Federal government, a Military with rather
: : strict standards on issues like illegal orders, and strong and activist
: : states and a politically engaged population who do not put up with
: : government gross misbehaviour.
:
: : The great failure of the critics of the US government is in imagining
: : that they understand checks and balances better than we do.
:
:
: Let's talk about the three branches of govt: executive, judical and
: legistative. Who has majority control of the exexutive? Republicans.
: Who has majority control of the legislative? Republicans. Who has
: majority control of the judicial? Republicans. Now where is your
: checks and balances?

: Well, if these checks and balances are supposed to come from having
: two parties that represent different social forces, it generally
: wouldn't matter whether the Democrats were in or not, judging by
: recent democratic presidents like Carter and Clinton. Both of these
: people were economically regressive, for instance.

Neither gave us the debt that Reagan and Bush Jr. have given us. And when
you say Clinton was regressive, what do you mean. We balanced the budget
under Clinton. How is that regressive?

: The neoliberal
: direction has been pretty much unchallenged ever since the late 1970s.

By whom? The word "liberal" is almost a slur these days thanks to the
likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

: The US is perhaps unique among industrialized countries in that there
: is no party which even claims to repesent labor (the Democrats recieve
: maybe four times as much money from business interests as from
: unions).

The GOP is happy to have whole industries go overseas. And wasn't it
Reagan that granted China nation most favored WRT trade about 20 years
ago?

: Factor in the one that really counts, then unelected officials connected
: to making decisions based upon what is best regarding the national
: security and you have a four way sweep. Right now there is no checks and
: balances, and THAT is why Kerry must win in 2004!

: I wouldn't kid one's self about Kerry. He's not as radical in his
: policies as Bush is, but he represents the same direction on almost
: every issue. If you want somebody who's policies would actually turn
: the direction around, go in a progressive, other direction, that's not
: Kerry. He might be forced to move in a progressive direction, if
: forced by public opinion and protesting.

He is more likely than is Bush, who if reelected won't have to worry about
being reelected in four years, so, we'll get the real Bush!. If that comes
to pass, God help us!

Eric

Scott Lowther ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : What, that the US should not fight wars that have nothing to do with us
: : or our interests? Sounds fair to me. If the South Koreans want the US
: : out... let them face the million man North Korean army on their own.
:
: You seem to think that the reunification of North and South Korea won't
: favor the north.

: Why do you suspect it'll be peaceful?


Is North Korea peaceful?

Eric

: --
: Scott Lowther, Engineer
: Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
: gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 3 Mar 2004 08:14:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, Gregg Germain
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:

: I think the issue to adherents of the Euros for oil pretext for the
: war was not so much that Saddam's taking Euros would cause a collapse
: of the US dollar...but that if Saddam's example caused other nations
: to also sell their oil in Euros, THEN it becomes a problem for the
: US.
:
: And the notion explains the French and German opposition to the war:
:
: they are looking to cause that switch to happen.

: It doesn't explain it as well as the fact that the end of Saddam meant
: the end of lucrative under-the-table contracts in violation of the
: sanctions, the end of bribes via oil vouchers (also described in the
: NYT article), and the end of keeping all that a secret.

What better person to steal from than a thief.

Eric

Jim Davis ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : You're surely not under the impression that length of time away
: : from the US has any citizenship implications?
:
: Well, it takes 7 years to become a citizen through
: naturalization.

: True, but not relevant since Oswald was a natural born US citizen.
:
: The lone nut theory relies on Oswald as being a citizen that
: rightly came back to the US through normal means.

: No, Eric. It by no means relies on that. One can easily construct
: scenarios where Oswald gets special treatment getting back to the US
: but still kills Kennedy on his own. Just off the top of my head: the
: US government, receiving Oswald's requests to return to the US,
: decides that he might be an ideal informant in various left wing
: domestic groups. The US expedites his return. The FBI, in later
: interviews with Oswald, decides he is just too unstable to be a
: reliable informant and drops the idea. Oswald, pursuing his own
: agenda, kills Kennedy.

Doesn't follow is politics. I get the attack of Walker, but not Kennedy.

: You seem to be locked into the mindset that remarkable circumstances
: *must* imply conspiracy. That is by no means the case. The only way
: one can prove conspiracy is presenting evidence of conspiracy.
: Pointing out remarkable circumstances that are just as consistent
: with lone gunman as they are conspiracy is pointless.

Not pointless at all. What it does is make one question the lone nut
theory, or offcial version. I suspect that many a believeer in the LNT
would never believe it were it not the offical explanation.

: : Because it is not regular practice to debrief returning
: : defectors in Europe or even debrief them at all.
:
: Totall bull****!!! In the military they get debriefed (or did)
: in Oberammagau, Germany, and if civilian it was the CIA's job in
: either Oberusal, Germany or the Netherlands before coming back
: to the states.
:
: I have a source. My dad worked at Oberammgau, Germany debriefing
: military defectors 40 years ago! Oswald not being debriefed is
: unthinkable given his background. The fact that officially is
: didn't happen raises more questions than it answered.

: Well, 40 years ago was 1964. Oswald returned in June, 1962. Perhaps
: policy changed after Novenber, 1963 given recent events? Can your
: father give a source for the law, regulation, order, or whatever that
: *required* Oswald to be interviewed in 1962?

He lived in Garmisch from 1960-65. He had the job there for that
timeframe.

I'll ask him about the probability of a redefector coming back into the US
and NOT getting debriefed.

: : The House Select Committee
: : on Assassinations discovered that of 22 US defectors returning
: : between 1958 and 1963 only 4 were interviewed.
:
: That is the evidence that they were given. Somebody is not
: telling the truth.

: Perhaps that somebody wasn't testifying under oath?

Or, simply lying. Dick Helms eluded to the fact that spooks will lie even
under oath under certain circumstances.

: : Completely untenable; all present at the interrogations agree
: : that no formal records were kept.
: :
: : : Pretty much.
: :
: : I don't believe it, It is just too convenient.
:
: : The testimony isn't what you want to hear so you just dismiss
: : it as being "too convenient"? Hardly the sign of an open mind.
:
: But what you are saying is that what happened was
: unconstitutional, yet it was regular practice. Sure, the lack of
: evidence can be used to procesute. But don't tell me that this
: is normal.

: What *are* you talking about? There is no constitutional requirement
: for interviews with suspects to be recorded.

Having counsel when charged with a crime is outlined in the 6th Amendment.

: No kidding! Try that and see for yourself what the precentage
: is.

: Oh, the percentage of confessions is very high but that is probably
: due to the corresponding high percentage of instances where the
: suspect is nabbed on the spot. Denials are not particularly useful in
: those cases.

Oswald was nabbed 1 hour after the assassination.

: Perhaps you would like to suggest that Kennedy could not have been
: assassinated at all because no one was arrested on the spot like most
: other assassinations and attempts?

No, the Zapruder film clearly shows he was killed as it was on the spot.
Oh, it also shows that a shot came from the right front!

: : Are you suggesting that the Dallas police should have released
: : Oswald when he denied killing Kennedy and Tippit and waited for
: : the real culprit to walk in and confess?
:
: No. But at that point he should have gotten legal counsel. Any
: legal counsel.

: Yes, he would have been wise to do that. But wisdom was not Oswald's
: strong suit.

Is there from of his denying counsel? You have no record of interrogation,
but you can prove Oswald denied counsel. Fascinating!!

: And cut the crap about refusing counsel, because
: during a press seession Oswald admitted that he had had no
: counsel. Hardly, what a guy would say demanding only one guy.

: Scruptulous adherence to the facts was also not one of Oswald's
: strong suits. Oswald was permitted phone calls, visits from the
: Dallas Bar, the ACLU, and his family. He refused all offers to secure
: a local attorney, insisting on Abt.

You know that but you don't know what was the content of the
interrogation? And before he gets cousel he gets killed while in police
custody. Do you not see soemthing suspicious about that? What if that
scenario came out of the USSR at that time with the premier, would you be
so open minded?

: Wasn't Dean Andrews suppose to represent Oswald at some point?

: Andrews claims that "Clay Bertrand" called him on November 23 about
: representing Oswald. Andrews admitted many times that he invented the
: whole story. But this launched the whole Jim Garrison fiasco.

Dean Andrews claim and then recanted. Right, the claim came in in 1963,
the recant in 1967. Which one seems more likely?

: : Roger Craig?
:
: : Why the change of subject? He wasn't present when Oswald was
: : interrogated.
:
: Sure he was. There is a photo.

: There is a photo of him in Fritz's office. Oswald was not interviewed
: there but in a small room close by used for specifically for
: interviewing suspects.
:
: : Surely you know what he has to say? His testimony is a matter
: : of public record.
:
: Right, be is the one person in the DPD that realized what utter
: crap had happened that weekend.

: Craig was a Deputy Sheriff, not a Dallas policeman. And your phrase
: "the one person" says volumes about your approach to the Kennedy
: assassination. But more about Craig below.

Hey, leaders and people with courage are few and far in between. I suspect
others knew and kept their mouths shut rather than end up like Tippet.

: We are impasse. What evidence do you see of a conspiracy?

: Well, there is some evidence for a conspiracy. Unfortunately, the
: evidence for conspiracy is incoherent, i.e. not logically consistent,
: leading me to conclude it's noise, not signal.

: Some examples:

: Some witnesses at the scene claim that more than 3 shots were fired.
: This is evidence of conspiracy since Oswald fired only 3. However,
: only about 5% claim this. Between 80 and 90% claim only 3 shots were
: fired. So are reports of 4 or more shots signal or noise?

: The aforementioned Roger Craig claims that he saw Oswald leave the
: TSBD *15 or 20 minutes* after the shooting and get in a Nash Rambler
: which drove off with the occupants. This is evidence of conspiracy.
: But this is completely inconsistent with every other witness, some of
: whom knew Oswald, who have Oswald fleeing the TSBD immediately before
: it was sealed off. But even ignoring this, why would Oswald hang
: around the TSBD for so long if he shot at Kennedy? If he didn't shoot
: at Kennedy why avoid the employee muster and why flee at all? How did
: he manage to slip out of the TSBD at all? And if he did have
: accomplices in the Rambler why did they abandon him so quickly
: ensuring his quick capture and danger to the conspiracy? None of
: Craig's testimony is consistent with the testimony of others or even
: self consistent. It just makes no sense at all. Is Craig's testimony
: signal or noise?

Wasn't that Nash Rambler suppose to be Ruth Paine's car?

: One Julia Ann Mercer claims that on the morning of the assassination
: she saw Oswald take a gun case from a truck driven by Jack Ruby and
: carry it to the grassy knoll. This is evidence of a conspiracy. Does
: it strike you as likely that preparations for an assassination would
: be carried out in so public a fashion? That only one person would
: notice? Is this signal or noise?

The guy on the GK right after the assassination with SS credentials while
all the SS in Dallas that day were in the motorcade.

What did Bowers see?

Eric

: Jim Davis

:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 2 Mar 2004 04:31:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a way as to indicate that:


: We are impasse. What evidence do you see of a conspiracy?
:
: Well, there is some evidence for a conspiracy. Unfortunately, the
: evidence for conspiracy is incoherent, i.e. not logically consistent,
: leading me to conclude it's noise, not signal.

: much snippage

: Jim, I'm curious. I occasionally spar with Eric, as long as I can
: whip off a quick response, but I'm curious.

: Why do you argue so extensively with someone incapable of arguing
: (i.e., presenting positions based on facts and logic)?

Because your assessment is wrong? "Hey, Rand Simberg says I am incapable
of sound argument. It must be true!" Yeah, right. Hey, Randie boy, maybe
your self-important pomposity is wearing off?

Eric

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:55:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : It's odd how radical teens convert to more conservative politics once
: : they get a job, house, kids, etc...
:
: : Actually, it's not odd at all.
:
: I guess older liberal Democrats are simply the odd ones in your book?

: Yes.

Sorry that you let your beliefs get in the way of your ability to learn
things.

Eric, you're hilarious.