News Is toxic cookware putting us at risk?

[Emieno]

They are not terrorists..

 

[Skyhunter]

I am scared of Penqwino.

Does that count?

 

[Skyhunter]

I will never wear deodorant for a woman, and I don't ever expect one to wear any for me. It's unnatural, there's nothing wrong with body odur. But I'm going to get so many distastefull replies for saying that, because society is so ingrained into thinking that odur is evil and you need to cover it up with whatever you can.

That is what I meant by honesty. If I were hiding my body odor I would have not have known that the first woman and I were incompatible. (Not that I found either of them terribly interesting.)

 

[SOS2008]

I am scared of Penqwino.

Does that count?

Yes, he terrorizes us all.

 

[loseyourname]

Look at your hypocrites, ganging up on Pengwuino for making a witty reponse to SOS' claim that the only terrorists she is afraid of are in the US government. What? Her statement counts as a legitimate point, but his is just an "ad hominem zinger?"

 

[SOS2008]

Look at your hypocrites, ganging up on Pengwuino for making a witty reponse to SOS' claim that the only terrorists she is afraid of are in the US government. What? Her statement counts as a legitimate point, but his is just an "ad hominem zinger?"

That's sweet of you LYN -- But for the record, I have been joking with Pengwuino in this thread, and I get the distinct impression Skyhunter's post was in jest as well.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah LYN, lighten up.

Besides, exactly which one of pengwuino's posts was a 'legitimate point'? When he called me stupid? Or when he implied there was a conspiracy to kill off stupid people? Or was it when said democrats are terrorists?

Really now...

 

[Pengwuino]

What? What happened?

I leave a thread and everyone starts fussing over lil ol me?

 

[Manchot]

Look at your hypocrites, ganging up on Pengwuino for making a witty reponse to SOS' claim that the only terrorists she is afraid of are in the US government. What? Her statement counts as a legitimate point, but his is just an "ad hominem zinger?"

Well, I don't see the Democrats using fear-mongering tactics, but I do see the current administration doing so. According to the http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism&x=8&y=15 , fear-mongering qualifies as terrorism. Interestingly enough, they use a fear of terrorism to coerce people into doing things. Nice. In the words of Jon Stewart, it's "the goal of this administration to spread irony throughout the world."

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, I don't see the Democrats using fear-mongering tactics, but I do see the current administration doing so. According to the http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism&x=8&y=15 , fear-mongering qualifies as terrorism. Interestingly enough, they use a fear of terrorism to coerce people into doing things. Nice.

"America is less safe now"
"Bush is going to take away your social security checks"
"Bush is going to take away all your rights"

Good point. Democrats don't use fear-mongering tactics.

I'm learning to shuffle poker chips. Damn flippers though, its hard as hell.

 

[Manchot]

Bush has taken away rights (through the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act). America is less safe now (as Katrina showed us). And we all know where Bush would stuff social security if he had the chance. Fear-mongering involves saying false things to scare people, such as "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Saying the truth isn't fear-mongering.

 

[Pengwuino]

haha so natural disasters are considered ammunition for "america is less safe now"? Sounds like every president in history that has had rain can have his opposition say that. Please, what rights (and please specifically point them out in the legislation) are we missing (except my right to a big ol shotgun... but eh, that was taken a way a while ago). And please, where are the "facts" showing where bush would "stuff" social security... or should we let the mathematics take over and let the system go bankrupt?

 

[SOS2008]

Bush has taken away rights (through the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act). America is less safe now (as Katrina showed us). And we all know where Bush would stuff social security if he had the chance. Fear-mongering involves saying false things to scare people, such as "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Saying the truth isn't fear-mongering.

I was about to make a similar response--thank you Manchot.

Maybe Pengwuino could become an understudy to Rove plus that would consume all of Rove's time, heh heh.

 

[SOS2008]

haha so natural disasters are considered ammunition for "america is less safe now"? Sounds like every president in history that has had rain can have his opposition say that. Please, what rights (and please specifically point them out in the legislation) are we missing (except my right to a big ol shotgun... but eh, that was taken a way a while ago). And please, where are the "facts" showing where bush would "stuff" social security... or should we let the mathematics take over and let the system go bankrupt?

This is why you become a target. Please try to contribute something meaningful, and stop asking for facts or sources when you are the biggest offender on this forum for lacking these things.

 

[Manchot]

haha so natural disasters are considered ammunition for "america is less safe now"? Sounds like every president in history that has had rain can have his opposition say that. Please, what rights (and please specifically point them out in the legislation) are we missing (except my right to a big ol shotgun... but eh, that was taken a way a while ago). And please, where are the "facts" showing where bush would "stuff" social security... or should we let the mathematics take over and let the system go bankrupt?

According to Bush, natural disasters count against safety. Why else would he put FEMA underneath the Department of Homeland Security?

As for our eroded rights, one need only look at the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. (Have you?) Since a "terrorist" is defined under the as someone who coerces others, breaks federal law, and endangers human life (a definition under which many violent criminals would qualify as terrorists), wiretaps can be authorized in many cases without having to satisfy probable cause (which we are guaranteed under the fourth amendment). As a student, under the No Child Left Behind Act, if my school receives any money from the federal government, then my name is by default given to the military, without my permission.

As for Social Security, I submit to you that it's too early to predict what's going to happen with it. If you say that something needs to be done now, then you must agree that Eisenhower should've done something to prevent the dot-com bubble burst. (It's the same time difference.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the lefties and righties both can find ammunition to show that the other side "fear mongers" either by lies or exagerations and both sides can also find means of justifying their side's claims which the other is calling fear mongering. Neither side is going to be able to satisfy the other so there is little point in arguing it.

 

[SOS2008]

I think the lefties and righties both can find ammunition to show that the other side "fear mongers" either by lies or exagerations and both sides can also find means of justifying their side's claims which the other is calling fear mongering. Neither side is going to be able to satisfy the other so there is little point in arguing it.

Agreed both sides can make claims accordingly. However, Manchot's reply stands that "Saying the truth isn't fear-mongering" in regard to the examples provided by Pengwuino. In this case satisfaction is not in question.

Other than that, those who bother to stay informed about events such as Katrina know this illustrates Americas inability to respond to any disaster, including a terrorist attack. The right to privacy in general has been under attack by the Bush administration, and in view of the many threads on Social Security, I am not feeling as kindly as Manchot to explain these things (again) in reply to a post that is ludicrous, if not in poor academic form.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I wasn't passing judgement on anyone's points. I just think it's rather futile to get into a "they did this" "well they did that" arguement, whether the points made are good or not. Wouldn't it be easier to just agree on the idea though point out you disagree with the examples? Then you can skip reiteration.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think the lefties and righties both can find ammunition to show that the other side "fear mongers" either by lies or exagerations and both sides can also find means of justifying their side's claims which the other is calling fear mongering. Neither side is going to be able to satisfy the other so there is little point in arguing it.

This is the kind of stuff that scares me and illustrates how Bush has made the country less safe.

As it happens, Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program during the late 1980s was one of the most efficient covert nuclear efforts the world has ever seen. The scientists who pulled it off are very gifted men and women, many of whom are now out of work. Their names are still being kept secret by the international agencies familiar with their work. But a source close to one of those agencies recently said that of the 200-some scientists at the top of its nuclear list, all but three remain unaccounted for. In a country with porous borders, where everyone -- but especially those associated with the former regime -- is in danger every day, many experts say at least some scientists are bound to be tempted to sell their knowledge to the highest bidder. And as the Pakistani network exposed last year shows, the nuclear black market is alive and well.

"Weapons don't make themselves," says Anne Harrington, director of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the National Academies. "Somebody has to interpret how to take military doctrine and intent and make it real. Materials, particularly nuclear materials, are not something you scoop out of the dirt. The human element is critical in all of this."

Nobody knows how many Iraqi scientists may have been lured over the borders into Iran, Syria, or beyond. Nobody knows because no one is keeping tabs. But several observers agree that so little attention is being paid to Iraq's scientists, the war may actually have increased the chances of nuclear capabilities proliferating beyond the country's borders. Between its unemployed scientists and the disappearance of large amounts of WMD-related materials from former weapons sites, Iraq now poses a nightmare scenario, according to Ray McGovern, who spent 27 years analyzing intelligence for the CIA and afterward cofounded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. "The danger is much more acute, both from the proliferation side and the terrorism side," McGovern says. "Before we invaded, there was no evidence that Iraq had any plan or incentive to proliferate. They didn't even have a current plan to develop WMDs. They just hadn't been doing it. Now, my God, we have a magnet attracting all manner of foreign jihadists to a place where the WMD expertise is suddenly unprotected. It just boggles the mind."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/09/armageddon.html

 

[Pengwuino]

This is why you become a target. Please try to contribute something meaningful, and stop asking for facts or sources when you are the biggest offender on this forum for lacking these things.

actually the fact of the matter is that people in this thread, mainly on your side of things, are the most noterious for not providing facts. I am not sure how many times I've seen people quote the patriot act as to where we actually are losing all hope of freedom... but I assume the number is <1 time. Unless of course, sites like reopen911.com and michael moore are credible on this forum.

 

[Smurf]

Unless of course, sites like reopen911.com and michael moore are credible on this forum.

I've asked like 20 times for any reason why michael moore is not credible. I have not received any response to that at all, let alone from a decent source. What makes Michael Moore uncredible? (i'm going to start keeping count)

 

[Pengwuino]

According to Bush, natural disasters count against safety. Why else would he put FEMA underneath the Department of Homeland Security?

As for our eroded rights, one need only look at the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. (Have you?) Since a "terrorist" is defined under the as someone who coerces others, breaks federal law, and endangers human life (a definition under which many violent criminals would qualify as terrorists), wiretaps can be authorized in many cases without having to satisfy probable cause (which we are guaranteed under the fourth amendment). As a student, under the No Child Left Behind Act, if my school receives any money from the federal government, then my name is by default given to the military, without my permission.[/QUOTE}

Hmm... what section and line is that in? I'm sure you have it handy...

And when hasnt the military been able to have your name? Hell you have to register for Selective service. Oh man, my rights :(

As for Social Security, I submit to you that it's too early to predict what's going to happen with it. If you say that something needs to be done now, then you must agree that Eisenhower should've done something to prevent the dot-com bubble burst. (It's the same time difference.)

Bad comparison. Are you suggesting we wait until the fund is empty to do something about it? Your comparison makes 0 sense since the social security fund is currently active and will continue to be active. On the other hand, the dot com industry did not exist back in Eisenhower's day.

 

[Pengwuino]

I've asked like 20 times for any reason why michael moore is not credible. I have not received any response to that at all, let alone from a decent source. What makes Michael Moore uncredible? (i'm going to start keeping count)

Ever seen Fahrenheit 9/11? A readily available article went through about http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf that were either lies or misconceptions from that documentary. A few months later, he even stopped calling it a documentary faced with overwhelming criticism about his lack of fact-checking. I believe he started calling it a drama instead.

Theres also a counter out ... called Celsius 41.11 or something stupid like that. Yah oddly enough, the media didn't care to mention it when it came out... wonder why

 

[SOS2008]

actually the fact of the matter is that people in this thread, mainly on your side of things, are the most noterious for not providing facts. I am not sure how many times I've seen people quote the patriot act as to where we actually are losing all hope of freedom... but I assume the number is <1 time. Unless of course, sites like reopen911.com and michael moore are credible on this forum.

I feel quite certain you know little of the Patriot Act, and certainly have not read it. And if you're going to make the accusation about posting facts, please be prepared to support this with evidence. I feel certain a count could be done of all posts and we would see that more liberal members provide sources/links/facts more often than conservative members--and you would be at the top of the list for failure to do so.

 

[Smurf]

Ever seen Fahrenheit 9/11? A readily available article went through about http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf that were either lies or misconceptions from that documentary.

Okay, you didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11. Why is he automatically discredible because he made a few mistakes, most of which weren't far off or details that don't change anything about the tone of the documentary (like the location of the pipeline - who cares?!).

Theres also a counter out ... called Celsius 41.11 or something stupid like that. Yah oddly enough, the media didn't care to mention it when it came out... wonder why

More lies arn't going to help anyone. They didn't say anything about it because they didn't want to lie about it and they didn't want to say anything bad about it. Only other option was to ignore it.

 

[Pengwuino]

I feel quite certain you know little of the Patriot Act, and certainly have not read it. And if you're going to make the accusation about posting facts, please be prepared to support this with evidence. I feel certain a count could be done of all posts and we would see that more liberal members provide sources/links/facts more often than conservative members--and you would be at the top of the list for failure to do so.

still waiting...

I looked up exactly what the ACLU told me to look up and follow the legislation along with the acts it amende and you pretty much come up with "liberals are lieing".

 

[Pengwuino]

Okay, you didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11. Why is he automatically discredible because he made a few mistakes, most of which weren't far off or details that don't change anything about the tone of the documentary (like the location of the pipeline - who cares?!).

Denial never helps anyone I truly doubt you read the whole thing or checked the facts.

More lies arn't going to help anyone. They didn't say anything about it because they didn't want to lie about it and they didn't want to say anything bad about it. Only other option was to ignore it.

Is denial genetic?

 

[loseyourname]

Yeah LYN, lighten up.

Besides, exactly which one of pengwuino's posts was a 'legitimate point'? When he called me stupid? Or when he implied there was a conspiracy to kill off stupid people? Or was it when said democrats are terrorists?

Really now...

The idea was that neither makes a legitimate point, yet everyone jumps on Pengwuino while getting on the SOS bandwagon. The difference is that Pengwuino wasn't trying to make a legitimate point. He was pointing out the absurdity of the original statement by making an equally absurd statement. Let's face it, while SOS does provide plenty of links (unfortunately, they are often to opinion polls or wikipedia), but she also provides a lot of empty rhetoric.

 

[Manchot]

actually the fact of the matter is that people in this thread, mainly on your side of things, are the most noterious for not providing facts. I am not sure how many times I've seen people quote the patriot act as to where we actually are losing all hope of freedom... but I assume the number is <1 time. Unless of course, sites like reopen911.com and michael moore are credible on this forum.

As a matter of fact, I did cite specific examples of how the PATRIOT act limits our freedoms, and you have ignored them. Do you deny that it defines a terrorist to be what I described? Do you deny that wiretaps can be ordered without showing probable cause? Do you deny that No Child Left Behind requires schools to give away the names of the children if they receive federal funding? Do you deny that FEMA was put under the Department of Homeland Security? Do you deny that the social security trust fund is projected to run out in 40 years? The point is that none of my facts are in dispute, but I think you know that.

 

[SOS2008]

The idea was that neither makes a legitimate point, yet everyone jumps on Pengwuino while getting on the SOS bandwagon. The difference is that Pengwuino wasn't trying to make a legitimate point. He was pointing out the absurdity of the original statement by making an equally absurd statement. Let's face it, while SOS does provide plenty of links (unfortunately, they are often to opinion polls or wikipedia), but she also provides a lot of empty rhetoric.

When I first joined PF what I saw was a Russ Watters bandwagon that you have jumped on frequently. Your opinion of whether I or other members who made a similar point are legitimate is your opinion, but no--Pengwuino's statement was not equally absurd--it was completely ridiculous. As I've said before, I realize many don't like what I have to say, but my sources are not mostly opinion polls (though very applicable in political science), but are mostly news sources. Pengwuino does not do his homework that any of us can see--too bad it's not permitted to do a poll. But since I don't want to continue to derail this thread into personal reviews, I will not reply to Pengwuino's post, and if either of you want to PM me feel free.