Little Old Lady Rape Analogy – and questionnaire

[Darwinist]

Oh, and Ian was quite right about the duel comment being a joke. Sorry I didn't add a I'm still getting used to this forum.

In that case, I gladly retract my belligerent sarcasm and apologize for same.

...Now, what about the 'disgrace to your country' part?

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

there may be sound reasons NOT to help the old lady; and there are definitely sound reasons why we should not have invaded a sovereign country, regardless of how unpopular and unpleasant we - or for that matter his own people! - found its ruler.

Not within the context of my questions. This is why I pointed out that any out of context points made would be irrelevant. Often people, when faced with a difficult question, will try and wriggle off the hook to avoid answers they either don’t have or don’t want to provide. Here is a simple example of this:

An exam question asks, “If the distance from the town hall to the market place was exactly 6.5 miles, how many miles would you travel if you drove from the town hall to the market place, and back, then back to the market place, and back to the town hall, then to a point half way between the two? If you were traveling at twenty miles an hour, how long with this trip take?”<br>Student (A) adds up the figures and provides his answer in miles, and in minutes. Student (B) tries but cannot do the math. Instead he writes, “Duh, there is no real answer because it depends on the road surface. If the road goes over hills then you will have variations in your speed, and this will effect the time it takes to drive. Also, what about the time it takes to stop, do a U-turn, and continue each time you turn around? Also, what about factoring in police cars, speed signs, other motorists in your way, and possible engine or brake problems? Not to mention a thousand other factors. So I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to answer.”<br> Needless to say student B fails the test. The question was provided under the obvious assumption that there were no such other factors to consider. In my case, the same applies, and this was made clear by me in my footnote of the same.

But the fact remains: there may be sound reasons NOT to help the old lady

Not within the context of my question. Listen, Darwinist old boy, if you’re so hot on this old lady you invented – the one who was so horrid to you that you would gladly stand by and let her be raped, use her in your own question. As for my question, the old lady was a friend of yours, and there were no reasons not to help her.

And the very fact that to date we still have not found (and are no longer even looking for!) any of the alleged WMDs which were claimed to be an imminent threat to the US - or for that matter a threat at all on any time-scale! -

So if someone removed your brain, and hid it, and we could not find it, and inspector’s verified you had no brain, then we could announce that you never had a brain. Gee, how quaint.

...All so one cruel man, who represented almost no legitimate threat to US security, could be brought down to satisfy the egos of a few men in power - and in the process further fill the already-overloaded bank accounts of their corporate friends with even more money.

According to you. According to President Bush, and many millions of others, this is not the way the story goes. If you wish to maintain that idea, you need to provide solid evidence. First, you need to answer the old lady questions honestly, without throwing up smoke screens. Second; you need to prove there were no WMD’s. Saying there weren’t any because Saddam hid them is not any kind of proof. In fact, it is a logical fallacy. Third; you need to prove that Saddam was no threat – just saying so is not proof. Fourth; you have to prove that Bush only started the war to satisfy a few men’s egos – a pompous and idiotic statement if ever I heard one. Good luck - you'll need it.

;~)

[Darwinist]

Not within the context of my questions. This is why I pointed out that any out of context points made would be irrelevant.

Oh get outta Dodge! You can't just arbitrarily announce before anyone responds that all "out of context points will be irrelevant!" How blatantly rigged do you honestly think you can get away with making this scenario?? What you've done is tantamount to a scientist announcing - before he conducts an experiment - that the only result he's going to accept is the one that confirms his expectations, and anything else will be considered "out of context." What crapola! And of course you are the person who decides what's in and out of context after the fact, aren't you? So if you get an answer that doesn't take you right where you want to go you simply announce "Out of context!" and declare the response invalid. Talk about stacking the deck!

The fact is I answered all of your questions: I said I would help the old lady - with the intelligent caveat of first assessing her situation in order to evaluate my own chances for safely doing so.

I said I would contact the police, regardless of whether I chose to help or not.

I said that if I had the gun you so kindly provided for me, I'd use it - and I said specifically HOW I'd use it.

Those are the necessary responses to your questions. After that came your barely coherent "analysis" of the use of force being "aggression" and how aggression in the cause of the helpless is, basically, a virtue ...blah, blah, blah ...and then came the connection to our actions in Iraq that was so tenuous as to be almost completely insubstantial.

If there's any comparison at all between Saddam's actions and your scenario, you have to tweak things just a bit: first you have to dump the old lady: Kuwait is where she belongs - the metaphor works that way. Kuwait was our ally at the time of DS1, so she was our "friendly neighbor." Iraq wasn't an ally prior to DS1, except in the sense that we'd been selling arms to them throughout the Iraq-Iran War, and they certainly weren't our ally AFTER DS1!

So your "old lady" is properly someone we used to do business with about 20 years ago (that's when we were selling arms to Iraq), and then beat up nearly 15 years ago because she smacked around a friend of ours (that was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and DS1), and she's been cussing us since because we've kept a ring of guard dogs around her house to make sure she behaves herself (that would be the sanctions and the containment of Iraqi military movements): and every time she takes a walk in her yard, one of the guard dogs jumps the fence and bites her on the butt (and that would be the air strikes for violations of the No-Fly Zone); not only that, but we've also insisted that she has to allow people she doesn't know to have the run of her house, and they get to roam at will, tearing up her rooms, getting into her dressers and cabinets, and generally making a nuisance of themselves (and those would be the arms inspectors). ...And you want us to believe, in your scenario, that after all this mistreatment we've heaped on her, this old lady is OUR FRIEND?? Not even on the Bizarro World!

Let's go with a slightly more solid metaphor, shall we?

Saddam - uh, I mean Sam, is a mean, nasty rich guy who lives on the other side of town from you. You've had some business dealings with him in the past. But even though those deals have been profitable, Sam's such a 5-alarm villian that you can't stand to be near anything but his money for more than a couple minutes at a time.

Years ago, Sam tried to beat the tar out of one of your friends, but fortunately you were nearby and broke things up. And Sam hasn't liked you very much ever since, because now the cops keep a close eye on him.

Sam, who's got a buttload of kids, is an abusive father. Indeed, you know for a fact that he beats the tar out of them on a regular basis - and sometimes so severely that they have to be sent to the hospital; a couple of them have even died. (You're a little ashamed of this too - because you sold Sam some of the baseball bats he uses on his kids.)

You've heard rumors that Sam would like to get even with you for what happened between you so many years ago, and Sam himself acts all blustery and tough every time you run into him, though he hasn't actually done anything to strongly threaten you since the incident all those years ago.

Do you:

A. Drive clear across town and break into Sam's house with a bunch of your friends and beat the snot out of him, and then claim you did it because you'd heard rumors he was "out to get you?"

B. Drive clear across town and break into Sam's house with a bunch of your friends and beat the snot out of him, and then claim you did it because he was abusing his kids?

C. A and B

There's the proper and accurate metaphorical scenario. Care to respond to the questions above, Rob?


...As for my question, the old lady was a friend of yours, and there were no reasons not to help her.

So because she's a friend, my ONLY acceptable option (according to you) is to leap in without any thought whatever, to try to save her? That's road-apples. If you're going to queer the scenario so that the only possible response is the one you want, and reject any other answer regardless of how reasonable it may be, your whole scenario is about as honest as a 3-card Monte game in Times Square.

[Darwinist]

So if someone removed your brain, and hid it, and we could not find it, and inspector’s verified you had no brain, then we could announce that you never had a brain. Gee, how quaint.

Very nice: to my observation of the fact that no WMDs have been found, to the fact that we're no longer even looking for them - and let's just go ahead an toss in the fact that David Kay's report stated unequivocally that there was no credible physical evidence that Saddam had even HAD WMDs since the time of DS1 - your only response is to insult me. What a class act you are. But thank you for confirming that you haven't got anything more substantive to say on the subject: I'll accept that as a clear win on that point.


According to you. According to President Bush, and many millions of others, this is not the way the story goes.

Oooo... geeeee... Do we get to play 'dueling pluralities' now? According to at least as many millions as you've got on the table, the entire Iraq war was precipitated on lies told to us by our president and his advisers; even the conservatives' darling, their shining idol in the news media, Bill O'Reilly, now says he believes the Bush administration lied through its teeth in order to get America all worked up to go to war against Iraq.

When a president has to drum up support for a war by feeding lies, misdirection and disinformation to the public, then it might be just possibly worth considering, for just a moment you know, that maybe, juuuuuust maybe, that war wasn't fully justifiable. And maybe it wasn't justifiable by any measure.


If you wish to maintain that idea, you need to provide solid evidence.

You want evidence? How about the Kay Report - the one that states in plain language that no credible physical evidence for programs to maintain or develop WMDs exists or existed in Iraq, prior to the war? That's not Kay's opinion, Rob, that's the conclusion of the combined investigative teams that were on-site, physically searching for evidence. ...Which is one hell of a lot closer than "President Bush, and many millions of others" ever got to any of the inspection sites.

Let's continue with no-bid contracts worth TENS TO HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS being awarded - no, handed on a silver platter! - to Halliburton, a company and its subsidiaries for which the sitting vice-president was once the CEO! Do you really think that's a coincidence?? Are you really so blind, or so brain-wiped, that you think Halliburton just happened to be in the right place at the right time?? ...So right there you have billions of pieces of evidence, Rob. How much more do you want?

Do you want evidence of the inflated egos of the men involved? Let's look at Don Rumsfeld, who, it was just revealed, STOLE a piece of the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, so he could display it (like a trophy?) in his office. That's a federal crime, Rob! He removed, or had removed, physical evidence either from the scene of a disaster or from the place where it was being stored for future cataloging - it doesn't matter which - and walked away with it! And then had the GALL to display it openly. The man committed a federal crime, and then flaunted what he'd done. That's "ego" with a capital hubris! And Rumsfeld is nothing special in terms of temperament; he fits right in with Ashcroft, Cheney, and Wolfowitz: they're all peas from the same pod.

Now, respond to the evidence I've provided. And see if you can do so in a legitimate way.


First, you need to answer the old lady questions honestly, without throwing up smoke screens.

I did. No smoke. My answers to those questions EXACTLY lays out what I would do under those circumstances, and how. If you don't like my responses, too damn bad. Next time, don't ask.


Second; you need to prove there were no WMD’s. Saying there weren’t any because Saddam hid them is not any kind of proof. In fact, it is a logical fallacy.

I never said they were hidden - that's your shtick, your little wet-nursed fantasy. David Kay and his inspections teams concluded unequivocally in their final report on WMDs, that there was no physical evidence that Saddam had been in possession of WMDs at least since the end of DS1. Kay and his inspectors were there, Rob. On-site. Sifting through documents, taking and analyzing samples, and god knows what else. For months. And they said there's no physical evidence for the presence of WMDs in Iraq. You don't have to believe me: I'm not an expert, and I have never been to Iraq. For that matter, GWB isn't an expert, and slipped into Iraq for only a few hours one time - without going near an inspection site. But Kay and his teams ARE experts, and they spent MONTHS scouring Iraq for something they now officially state doesn't exist and hasn't existed for more than 10 years. ...Who ya gonna believe, Rob? Who ya gonna believe?


Third; you need to prove that Saddam was no threat – just saying so is not proof.

Kay and his teams - the on-site experts - say Saddam was no threat: the very fact they say he had no WMDs means he was no threat to the security of the United States. ('Is any of this, I say, is any of this gettin' through that little blue bonnet of your'n, Henrietta?')


Fourth; you have to prove that Bush only started the war to satisfy a few men’s egos – a pompous and idiotic statement if ever I heard one. Good luck - you'll need it.

That was only one reason. By itself, it probably wouldn't have been good enough - certainly the American public would have never gone for it. So other reasons had to be found - or invented. One of the found reasons was to wildly enrich Cheney's old crew at Halliburton - but that one was a little too cynical and mercenary for the public to swallow - especially since it was going to be another case of rich Republicans helping rich corporate fat-cats (and probably good Republicans too) become so obscenely wealthy even Midas himself would retch in disgust. ...So they couldn't give that reason to the public, since they wouldn't be sharing in any part of the money-pie. Then, no doubt, someone had a brainstorm -
"say we're going to war to give 'humanitarian aid!' ...Just don't tell the public that the lion's share of that 'humanitarian aid' is going to end up in the pockets of the executives of Halliburton and its subsidiaries - heh heh!" (...Big laughs at the private country club, that one. )

So they had to invent reasons: WMDs, "imminent threat," Saddam kicks his dog and sticks his tongue out at old ladies. Stuff like that. And a bunch of us bought it. Me? I was promised a bridge in beautiful downtown Baghdad. But I had to pass - I'm still paying for the one I bought from Reagan.

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

So if someone removed your brain, and hid it, and we could not find it, and inspector’s verified you had no brain, then we could announce that you never had a brain. Gee, how quaint.

Very nice: to my observation of the fact that no WMDs have been found, to the fact that we're no longer even looking for them - and let's just go ahead an toss in the fact that David Kay's report stated unequivocally that there was no credible physical evidence that Saddam had even HAD WMDs since the time of DS1 - your only response is to insult me.

This was no insult to you. It was me using your argument: - that if something is not found, it could not have existed. All those that hid things never to be found again, never had them. They magically disappeared from existence and from history, as they might in some Twilight Zone movie, because you said so. This would include any thing that was removed, hidden and missing. So if my foot, Elvis Presley’s body or your brain were removed and unfound, they could never have been. Test out your own theory. If your brain is removed and hidden, and I can find an inspector to verify that he can’t find it, and a Mr. Kay to say that he doesn’t believe it existed, then, by jingo, it means you didn’t have one. I didn’t say that – you did!

If you wish to maintain that idea, you need to provide solid evidence.

You want evidence? How about the Kay Report - the one that states in plain language that no credible physical evidence for programs to maintain or develop WMDs exists or existed in Iraq, prior to the war? That's not Kay's opinion, Rob, that's the conclusion of the combined investigative teams that were on-site, physically searching for evidence. ...Which is one helluva a lot closer than "President Bush, and many millions of others" ever got any of the inspection sites.

No, you have failed miserably at proving your allegation. Saying that so and so said so, is not proof. You will need to do much more than that. Kay is a political opportunist. He chose this time to launch his statements as an attempt to de-rail Bush. Any number of other inspectors disagree with Kay – he is simply one human being who decided to use his position to gain votes for the Democrats.

Let's continue with no-bid contracts worth TENS TO HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS being awarded - no, handed on a silver platter! - to a company and its subsidiaries for which the sitting vice-president was once the CEO! Do you really think that's a coincidence??

Which company? How much exactly? Why were they (officially) awarded the contract, and exactly by whom, for what given reasons (precisely, thank you, and point to the source)? When was the sitting vice-president a CEO of that company, for how long, and for what reason? Why did he leave that company? What relationship does he have today with that company? What proof do you have that the company in question was awarded a contract as a result of their having once employed a man who works for the United States Government? How many other men and women did they employ who today also work for the US government? Are they therefore also implicated, and if so, why? If not, why not? Make sure you provide concise, clear answers, and point to reputable sources to back them up. My bet is that after you start digging you will find nothing remotely strange, suspicious or untoward in any such relationship. I could find a way to relate my shoelaces to your jockstrap if I wanted to. “The same company that made Rob Larrikin’s shoelaces, had a CEO that used to travel on Singapore Airlines, often sharing a first class seat with the CEO of the company that made Darwinist’s jockstrap. His secretary has been tied to the Mob, so this means that Larrikin and Darwinist may well be Mafioso’s.”<br>

Are you really so blind, or so brain-wiped, that you think Halliburton just happened to be in the right place at the right time?? ...So right there you have biilions of pieces of evidence, Rob. How much more do you want?

Never mind the “billions” of pieces of “evidence” you say you’ve provided me Darwinist; let’s try getting the answers to the twenty or thirty questions you have so far avoided.

Do you want evidence of the inflated egos of the men involved? Let's look at Don Rumsfeld, who, it was just revealed, STOLE a piece of the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, so he could display it (like a trophy?) in his office. That's a federal crime, Rob!

Firstly, I do not believe he stole anything. I would ask you to supply hard evidence, once again. Remember, you are accusing him of being a thief. If you went to court to prove that, you would need hard evidence, and you would need to prove your case. So do it.
[Cricket’s chirping]
Now, even in the remote case of you providing anything but more blather, who the hell cares? If that’s the best you can come up with, I’d advise you to try a little harder.

First, you need to answer the old lady questions honestly, without throwing up smoke screens.

I did. No smoke. My answers to those questions EXACTLY lays out what I would do under those circumstances, and how. If you don't like my responses, too damn bad. Next time, don't ask.

You have thrown away any chance of being taken seriously Darwinist. You blatantly invent your own versions of the questions and answer those, instead of mine, and when this is pointed out to you, you blithely go on with the same evasive mumbo jumbo. You concentrate so hard on holding up your bloated ego that you forget how to think clearly. You should place a large, “THINK” sign on your desk, and perhaps tattoo another on your forehead, in reverse writing, so that you will be reminded to think, each hour you study yourself in the mirror.

Remember Darwinist, there are 26 letters in the alphabet. K is just one. Go study the others before you lose every scrap of respect you thought you had left.

[Ogilvy]

Rob said:

2) I met a very passionate vegetarian. After listening to her rant and rave for a while, I asked her, “Just how far would you take this? Let’s say you were the omnipotent ruler of the whole world, with infinite power to wield. Everyone obeyed your every command. Would you bring in a law that said that eating animals was forbidden?”<br> She said, “Yes, and I would make any transgression punishable by death.”<br> “Really?” I said. “Okay, well, imagine a family in India, suffering from starvation. The father has two children, and they are about to die of malnutrition. There is also a dying mouse. The mouse is lying on the floor, injured by a passing cat, and is going to die soon anyway. The father fries the mouse and feeds it to his two starving children. What would you do to him?”<br> “Put him to death,” she announced, without any hesitation.

People like that need to be punched in the face.

[Rob Larrikin]

Ogilvy said:

People like that need to be punched in the face.

I guess it wouldn't hurt. She was the daughter of my accountant. He had stock in the meat industry. She tried to force him to sell it, and when he wouldn't, she 'divorced' him, living in seclusion in a bungalow in the back yard (his back yard). It was a haunt for spiders and mice, which she refused to kill or move away. Spider webs everywhere. Like some kind of demented witch.

Who knows what damage she has done to others since then, with any kind of power she managed to claw for herself?

Incidentally, we started with people suing people for anything that could cause any kind of injury, and then we were suing cigarette companies. Now there is talk about people suing food outlets that advertise their fat building food as “great for your shape” but made them fat. While we’re in the mood, how about we start suing schools that are responsible for witches like the one above? I imagine if you did some detective work, you would probably find one or two teachers in her school directly responsible for her fanatical vegetarian brainwashing – or for at least for helping to nurture it. You could sue the school in question, and you could take out civil suits against the teachers personally. That ought to rock their boat.

[Darwinist]

This was no insult to you. It was me using your argument: - that if something is not found, it could not have existed. All those that hid things never to be found again, never had them. They magically disappeared from existence and from history, as they might in some Twilight Zone movie, because you said so. This would include any thing that was removed, hidden and missing. So if my foot, Elvis Presley’s body or your brain were removed and unfound, they could never have been. Test out your own theory. If your brain is removed and hidden, and I can find an inspector to verify that he can’t find it, and a Mr. Kay to say that he doesn’t believe it existed, then, by jingo, it means you didn’t have one. I didn’t say that – you did!

But you see, Kay isn't saying he believes there were no WMDs, he's saying there is no physical evidence that they existed within the last decade, at least. Do you understand the difference between wishful thinking and a verified lack of evidence? Do you understand the concepts of forensics? Do you understand how very, very difficult it is to do anything - espcially on a large scale - without leaving a physical record of doing it? You literally can't even walk across your own living-room without leaving a light trail of sloughed-off skin cells and fallen hair, not to mention fibers from your clothes. That's physical evidence. The clean-up and hiding of various weapons of mass destruction would have left behind physical evidence of that clean-up - traces of specific powerful solvents at sites suspected of harboring biological agents, for example; background radiation anomalies, radiation hot spots, etc., at sites where nuclear development was supposed to be going on - these are the unavoidable residual traces of clean-up processes, and would have been one of the focuses of the investigations of Kay's teams. They found no credible physical evidence that even clean-ups had taken place - no solvent residues, no radiation hot spots, no traces of the use of the sorts of propellants required for ballistic missiles - none of it. So not only does visual inspection say no WMDs, the forensic investigations say no WMDs. You were pretty quick to assign me godlike powers in order to salvage a sinking scenario - are you now also going to assign godlike powers to the Iraqi soldiers and techs who would have been the ones doing the clean-ups, so that they do a forensically indetectable job of it? I guess you are. ...It's simply amazing that we could have beaten such Supermen in a war. But be assured, my next upstairs-maid is going to be an Iraqi tech person!


No, you have failed miserably at proving your allegation. Saying that so and so said so, is not proof. You will need to do much more than that. Kay is a political opportunist. He chose this time to launch his statements as an attempt to de-rail Bush. Any number of other inspectors disagree with Kay – he is simply one human being who decided to use his position to gain votes for the Democrats.

Astonishing. This has become almost a matter of religious faith for you, hasn't it? Standards that would satisfy any rational human being aren't enough to satisfy you. Any number of inspectors disagree with the findings of the Kay report? Name them. And supply a link to the evidence they provide for repudiating the report. Put up or shut up.


Which company? How much exactly? Why were they (officially) awarded the contract, and exactly by whom, for what given reasons (precisely, thank you, and point to the source)? When was the sitting vice-president a CEO of that company, for how long, and for what reason? Why did he leave that company? What relationship does he have today with that company? What proof do you have that the company in question was awarded a contract as a result of their having once employed a man who works for the United States Government? How many other men and women did they employ who today also work for the US government? Are they therefore also implicated, and if so, why? If not, why not? Make sure you provide concise, clear answers, and point to reputable sources to back them up.

I suggest you dig for that material yourself - most of it is a matter of public record. The government will not say exactly how much $ the Halliburton contracts are worth - national security matter, you know. All we do know is that it's supposed to be enough to cover the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure - and that ain't pocket-change, it's pretty safe to say! How much money do YOU think the rebuilding of an entire country's infrastructure would take, Rob? A couple million dollars? Maybe a bil' or two? Or maybe just a weeee bit more than that? Remember to factor in the salaries for all the workers involved - including those (plus involved bonuses!) of Halliburton's executives, okay? Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 until 2000 - IOW, right up to the moment he walked into the White House to become Bush's personal puppetmaster. Why was he CEO? I dunno. Maybe it had to do with his scintillating business acumen; maybe it was because he could suck a watermelon through a garden hose, and the CEO before Cheney found that such an endearing talent that he set up a special office for Dickie-boy ...under his desk - and since Dickie was already in the office when the previous guy moved on, they just let him stay there. Who the hell knows why Cheney became Halliburton's CEO? I wasn't on the board that picked him. ...Would you like to give me a heads-up on relevance here?

All you're doing at this point is trying to cloud the obvious. Give it a rest. Stop using a bumper-sticker as the basis for your philosophy about America, and start using your mind and eyes.

[Darwinist]

Never mind the “billions” of pieces of “evidence” you say you’ve provided me Darwinist; let’s try getting the answers to the twenty or thirty questions you have so far avoided.

Ohhhh, of course!! Sweep the obvious money-trail under the rug, and let's get on with the business of obfuscation and damage-control.


Firstly, I do not believe he stole anything. I would ask you to supply hard evidence, once again. Remember, you are accusing him of being a thief. If you went to court to prove that, you would need hard evidence, and you would need to prove your case. So do it.

It's in his possession: Rumsfeld's press-secretary ADMITS the piece was never cataloged, and then says that if anyone ever needs it for an evidentiary purpose, Rummy will be glad to give it back. IOW, having committed a federal crime and having flaunted it, Rumsfeld continues to flaunt it by left-handedly refusing to give it back, having his p-s say he'll return it if anyone ever needs it for an "evidentiary purpose." And if the piece wasn't stolen, Rob, how'd Rummy get hold of it, hmm? And even if it flew through his window on its own, the p-s's admission that's it's a piece of uncataloged evidence from the site of the federal investigationat into the 9/11 crash at the Pentagon, proves Rummy knew exactly what it was and exactly where it came from, and what its status was vis-a-vis the investigation. And Rummy's petulant "I'll give it back if anyone ever needs it for evidence" attitude shows that he intends to keep a piece of physical evidence that was removed illegitimately and illegally from the site of a federal investigation. Even if Rummy didn't personally pick it up and put it in his pocket, he has demonstrated that he knows what he has and what its legal status is: and simple possession of evidence becomes a crime when the possessor refuses to release what he has after he finds out what it is: that's called withholding evidence. Rumsfeld (neither a trained aviation investigator nor a forensics expert) is not competent to determine that his piece of the plane is or is not "evidentiary" in nature. Therefore it's not up to him to say that he'll keep it until it's needed as evidence: for all he knows it may be a vital piece of evidence right now! But that's the way runaway egos operate: they believe, in all innocence, that they have not only a right but a duty to rewrite the rules everybody else must be forced to live by in such a way as to make themselves exempt from those rules.


Now, even in the remote case of you providing anything but more blather, who the hell cares?

Of course. Who the hell cares? I said these men acted in Iraq at least partially based on ego-masturbation, and you say "prove it," and then when I offer up a sterling example of an act by a man whose ego has plainly run away with him, you say "who cares." You're quickly reaching the point at which you're not even worth talking to.


If that’s the best you can come up with, I’d advise you to try a little harder.

What do you want, signed confessions?


You have thrown away any chance of being taken seriously Darwinist. You blatantly invent your own versions of the questions and answer those, instead of mine

How did I not answer your questions? What you really mean is that you don't accept my answers, and you're irritated that I pointed out how nauseatingly rigged your little game is, and how fundamentally dishonest that makes it.


...and when this is pointed out to you, you blithely go on with the same evasive mumbo jumbo.

How so? Try to be specific, would you? I think I was pretty damn clear with my responses, and the reasons I gave for those responses. So I fail to see how you can label it "evasive mumbo-jumbo." But maybe you can enlighten me....


You concentrate so hard on holding up your bloated ego that you forget how to think clearly.

Let's see you make a clear connection between those two points, shall we? I don't deny for a moment that I've got an ego, nor do I deny for a moment that I can be quite intolerantly arrogant in the presence of inferior intellects (which, unfortunately, means most of them) and/or unorganized thinking. But it's up to you, now, to show how my bloated ego logically leads to an inability to think clearly. Get started. We're all waiting.


You should place a large, “THINK” sign on your desk, and perhaps tattoo another on your forehead, in reverse writing, so that you will be reminded to think, each hour you study yourself in the mirror.

Yaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnn. S - t - r - e - t - c - h. Yaaawwwwwnnnnnnnn again. ...Oh. Were you saying something?


Remember Darwinist, there are 26 letters in the alphabet. K is just one. Go study the others before you lose every scrap of respect you thought you had left.

Here's a news bulletin: I don't care if you respect me.

Wait. Let me be more precise: I don't need or want the respect of someone as plainly intellectually dishonest as you.

In fact, I'd like to maintain you at more-than arm's length, because that keeps you outta my face, away from my kids, and out of reach of my wallet.

...Understand?

Oh... by the way, Rob: I notice that you avoided like the plague responding to the scenario I came up with. Why? Do you find my metaphors a trifle uncomfortable?

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

This was no insult to you. It was me using your argument: - that if something is not found, it could not have existed. All those that hid things never to be found again, never had them. They magically disappeared from existence and from history, as they might in some Twilight Zone movie, because you said so. This would include any thing that was removed, hidden and missing. So if my foot, Elvis Presley’s body or your brain were removed and unfound, they could never have been. Test out your own theory. If your brain is removed and hidden, and I can find an inspector to verify that he can’t find it, and a Mr. Kay to say that he doesn’t believe it existed, then, by jingo, it means you didn’t have one. I didn’t say that – you did!

But you see, Kay isn't saying he believes there were no WMDs, he's saying there is no physical evidence that they existed within the last decade, at least.

What he means, and will verify, is that he found no such evidence. See my “my brain is gone, thus I never had one,” notes. According to your theory, Saddam Hussein didn’t exist until they found him. The dozen or so MIG’s they found buried in the desert didn’t exist before they were found, and 9/11 was an impossible event before 9/11, because it hadn’t happened yet.

No, you have failed miserably at proving your allegation. Saying that so and so said so, is not proof. You will need to do much more than that. Kay is a political opportunist. He chose this time to launch his statements as an attempt to de-rail Bush. Any number of other inspectors disagree with Kay – he is simply one human being who decided to use his position to gain votes for the Democrats.

Astonishing. This has become almost a matter of religious faith for you, hasn't it? Standards that would satisfy any rational human being aren't enough to satisfy you. Any number of inspectors disagree with the findings of the Kay report? Name them. And supply a link to the evidence they provide for repudiating the report. Put up or shut up.

It is your assertion that EVERY weapons inspector agrees with Kay – not mine. Since it is your assertion, you should prove it. If you believe that every weapons inspector believes what Kay believes, name them. Provide a source – put up or shut up. Don’t forget, we need real proof of that.

Darwinist - Let's continue with no-bid contracts worth TENS TO HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS being awarded - no, handed on a silver platter! - to a company and its subsidiaries for which the sitting vice-president was once the CEO! Do you really think that's a coincidence??
Larrikin - Which company? How much exactly? Why were they (officially) awarded the contract, and exactly by whom, for what given reasons (precisely, thank you, and point to the source)? When was the sitting vice-president a CEO of that company, for how long, and for what reason? Why did he leave that company? What relationship does he have today with that company? What proof do you have that the company in question was awarded a contract as a result of their having once employed a man who works for the United States Government? How many other men and women did they employ who today also work for the US government? Are they therefore also implicated, and if so, why? If not, why not? Make sure you provide concise, clear answers, and point to reputable sources to back them up.

Darwinist - I suggest you dig for that material yourself - most of it is a matter of public record.

No, again, you are the one making the outlandish allegations. You can try answering the hard questions for once in your life. If it’s true, you should have no trouble providing real proof, not waffle and innuendo.

Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 until 2000 - IOW, right up to the moment he walked into the White House to become Bush's personal puppetmaster. Why was he CEO? I dunno. Maybe it had to do with his scintillating business acumen; maybe it was because he could suck a watermelon through a garden hose, and the CEO before Cheney found that such an endearing talent that he set up a special office for Dickie-boy ...under his desk - and since Dickie was already in the office when the previous guy moved on, they just let him stay there. Who the hell knows why Cheney became Halliburton's CEO? I wasn't on the board that picked him. ...Would you like to give me a heads-up on relevance here?

That’s what you call waffle, Darwinist. You said that the contract was provided to this company BECAUSE a person they once employed is now employed by the government. Provide evidence or shut the hell up.

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

Never mind the “billions” of pieces of “evidence” you say you’ve provided me Darwinist; let’s try getting the answers to the twenty or thirty questions you have so far avoided.

Ohhhh, of course!! Sweep the obvious money-trail under the rug, and let's get on with the business of obfuscation and damage-control.

Says the amateur obfuscation hobbyist, using more obfuscation. You know, I can help you fix your obfuscation problem, but you will need to stop obfuscating for ten minutes while I give you the injections.

Firstly, I do not believe he stole anything. I would ask you to supply hard evidence, once again. Remember, you are accusing him of being a thief. If you went to court to prove that, you would need hard evidence, and you would need to prove your case. So do it.

It's in his possession: Rumsfeld's press-secretary ADMITS the piece was never cataloged, and then says that if anyone ever needs it for an evidentiary purpose, Rummy will be glad to give it back.

I’m glad for you. Now prove he stole it – and please, stop waffling.

Now, even in the remote case of you providing anything but more blather, who the hell cares?

Of course. Who the hell cares? I said these men acted in Iraq at least partially based on ego-masturbation, and you say "prove it," and then when I offer up a sterling example of an act by a man whose ego has plainly run away with him, you say "who cares." You're quickly reaching the point at which you're not even worth talking to.

Now you’re not just blathering, you’re rambling like some kind of a drug crazed psycho. Time for your medication, I think. As I said, with crickets chirping loudly from your corner, if you have any proof that the man stole something, provide it. If “stole” is just a word you’re throwing around, then throw it somewhere else. Case dismissed. Next.

If that’s the best you can come up with, I’d advise you to try a little harder.

What do you want, signed confessions?

Evidence; proof. Real evidence. Real proof. Not hot air, innuendo, blather, conjecture, mud slinging, jingoism, babble, balderdash, bunkum, double-talk, gibberish, gobbledygook, hogwash, hooey, jabber, nonsense, poppycock, rubbish, tripe or twaddle. Thanks Roget.

You have thrown away any chance of being taken seriously Darwinist. You blatantly invent your own versions of the questions and answer those, instead of mine

How did I not answer your questions?

By not answering them.

[Darwinist]

What he means, and will verify, is that he found no such evidence. See my “my brain is gone, thus I never had one,” notes. ...

Oh Jesus Christ, Rob!! Kay is a highly trained expert whose equally trained teams know WHERE to look and HOW to look for evidence of WMDs. What the hell do YOU know about it, that you question the conclusions of the final official report?? The answer - until you provide evidence (!) to the contrary - is: YOU KNOW NOTHING about it - except that you desperately want that conclusion to be wrong!


It is your assertion that EVERY weapons inspector agrees with Kay – not mine.

You're a flat-out liar: provide the quote in which I said every inspector agrees with the conclusions of the report, or retract your scummy calumny.

What I say is that the final conclusion of the OFFICIAL REPORT on the status of WMDs in Iraq, as a result of on-site inspections occuring both prior to and following the coalition invasion, is that there is NO CREDIBLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT OVER THE LAST DECADE SADDAM POSSESSED, MAINTAINED OR WAS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

If other inspectors disagree with the conclusion of that OFFICIAL report that's up to them, AND it's a separate issue, unless those disagreements were included in the body of the OFFICIAL document. So you're still obligated to provide the evidence that supports your claim that other inspectors disagree. (Man, you're an intellectually sleazy so-and-so!)


That’s what you call waffle, Darwinist. You said that the contract was provided to this company BECAUSE a person they once employed is now employed by the government. Provide evidence or shut the hell up.

I lay out the facts of the case and ask you to draw the obvious conclusion:

Fact 1. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000;

Fact 2. Dick Cheney becomes vice-president in 2000, leaving the CEO-ship of Halliburton;

Fact 3. Cheney did not divest himself of his Halliburton holdings until after it was publicly revealed through the media that he still held 430,000 options in the company, indicating potential conflicts of interest since Halliburton is a major government contractor (and by the way, Cheney still draws a Halliburton salary - it's just being 'deferred' until after he is out of federal office - here's a link: www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2564&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported);

Fact 4. Cheney maintains close personal ties to his old mates from Halliburton;

Fact 5. After the invasion of Iraq, and after the announcement by the Bush administration that only American companies would be allowed to assist in the rebuilding of the country, it was assumed that those contracts would be awarded via the standard open bidding process by which government contracts are typically awarded;

Fact 6. That didn't happen at all. Instead, in a move unprecedented in the history of government contracting, Halliburton, the vice-president's old company (from which he is still drawing a deferred salary, and with whose executive members he is still on chummy personal terms), and its various subsidiary companies, was HANDED the multi-billion dollar government contract to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure: no bids were taken for the contract, no other potential contractors (out of a pool of hundreds) were ever even considered, to all appearances.

I say the connection and the conclusion is obvious: Cheney is still in bed with Halliburton even as he performs the duties of the vice-president of the United States. And since he is the second-highest ranking executive official in government and is fully as representative of the Bush administration as Bush himself, the it follows that the Bush administration is also in bed with Halliburton. The conflict of interest is obvious - even if it isn't quite openly illegal. (And that remains to be seen, I think.) At the very least, it's naked influence-peddling and patrimony - and unethical as hell.

[Darwinist]

Says the amateur obfuscation hobbyist, using more obfuscation. You know, I can help you fix your obfuscation problem, but you will need to stop obfuscating for ten minutes while I give you the injections.

F y, a.


I’m glad for you. Now prove he stole it – and please, stop waffling.

He's in possession of property taken illegally from the site of an FAA and FBI air disaster investigation. That by itself is a crime, especially since he knows what he has.

He admits he has it, he admits he knows where it came from, he admits he knows it's evidence in the investigation, he admits it's uncataloged: He's confessed to his criminal behavior. What do I need to prove?

Rummy just maintains there's nothing wrong with what he's done. That attitude indicates one of two things: either he's got a runaway ego (and he's a confessed criminal), or he's a clinical psychopath (and a confessed criminal).

All we're waiting for at this point is the formal legal conviction, followed by the presidential pardon.


Now you’re not just blathering, you’re rambling like some kind of a drug crazed psycho. Time for your medication, I think. As I said, with crickets chirping loudly from your corner, if you have any proof that the man stole something, provide it. If “stole” is just a word you’re throwing around, then throw it somewhere else. Case dismissed. Next.

If a person is in knowing possession of stolen property, the law treats them exactly as if they were the person who physically took the article in the first place: it's the same legal principle that lets the driver of the getaway car be convicted of bank robbery even though he didn't have a gun and wasn't in the bank. Next.


Evidence; proof. Real evidence. Real proof. Not hot air, innuendo, blather, conjecture, mud slinging, jingoism, babble, balderdash, bunkum, double-talk, gibberish, gobbledyperson, hogwash, hooey, jabber, nonsense, poppy*censored, rubbish, tripe or twaddle. Thanks Roget.

He admits he has it, he admits he knows where it came from, he admits he knows it's evidence in the investigation, he admits it's uncataloged: He's confessed to his criminal behavior. What do I need to prove?


By not answering them.

And I repeat: F y, a.

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

What he means, and will verify, is that he found no such evidence. See my “my brain is gone, thus I never had one,” notes. ...

Oh Jesus Christ, Rob!! Kay is a highly trained expert

Like an army of other highly trained experts. They all have their political views, and their ideas about Iraq. You don’t see them running about doing TV interviews, trying to discredit their President during an election year. Kay did. He’s an ass-wipe. I wouldn’t place a nickel of worth on his “opinions”.

whose equally trained teams know WHERE to look and HOW to look for evidence of WMDs.

Thousands of people fit the same description, including many in the army, air force, navy and Intel. You don’t see them running around bellyaching and squealing at Bush to help him lose his election. Kay does. I would say he’s a shemale going through menopause. He was certainly an embarrassment to the rest of those that had anything to do with this, and you’ll notice nobody siding with the halfwit, except all the amateur left winged hacks, like yourself.

It is your assertion that EVERY weapons inspector agrees with Kay – not mine.

You're a flat-out liar: provide the quote in which I said every inspector agrees with the conclusions of the report, or retract your scummy calumny.

You’re right. Most inspectors did not agree with him.

What I say is that the final conclusion of the OFFICIAL REPORT on the status of WMDs in Iraq

It was far from being the final conclusion, and it was not THE official report – just one report of many; some accurate; some inaccurate, some on course, some totally off course, and some that remain to be seen in regard to their accuracy.

That’s what you call waffle, Darwinist. You said that the contract was provided to this company BECAUSE a person they once employed is now employed by the government. Provide evidence or shut the hell up.

I lay out the facts of the case and ask you to draw the obvious conclusion:

Fact 1. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000;

[Snip] – Irrelevant waffle.

Like I said Darwinist, if you wish to prove there was some kind of conspiracy, or deal, you need to supply hard evidence. If I need to know who worked for whom, and when, I can look at Who’s Who. All your points were about as relevant as my reference to my shoelaces and your jockstrap being tied to the Mob. Anything can be linked to anything using that kiddy method. It falls down in court, where you are required to provide HARD EVIDENCE. Get that tattoo gun out kiddo, and tattoo THINK on your forehead. Reverse it so you can read it in the mirror, for frequent reminders.

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

I’m glad for you. Now prove he stole it – and please, stop waffling.

He's in possession of property taken illegally from the site of an FAA and FBI air disaster investigation. That by itself is a crime, especially since he knows what he has.

I’m saying that is not true. You say he committed a crime. I’m saying – prove it.

He's confessed to his criminal behavior. What do I need to prove?

He didn’t confess to criminal behavior. You say he did. Prove it.

And I repeat: F y, a.

For your information, it’s FYI (for your information). Sheesh, you can’t even get that right . . .