>> ^vaporlock:

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.



like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context

Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.

In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.

The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.

You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.

Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.

It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.

As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).

Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).

I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.

>> ^vaporlock:

I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"



Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.

Dude, is it so hard to believe a public employee makes $12,000 a month? That's only $144,000 a year, not $1.4 million. It's possible. Especially since so many groups are unionized in this state.

Remember this video with Councilman Bernard Parks banning fast food in South LA? Well, according to this article from LA Times (you know how right wing they can be), Parks makes $178,789 a year plus "$22,000 a month in city retirement benefits". Plus a police pension of $265,050 being the highest paid police chief in US history. But that's just one councilman and retired police chief in LA.

The entire Los Angeles general fund budget is $6.7billion, and they're projecting a deficit. The police budget's over 1 billion. And check this article out:

Los Angeles could face nearly a $1-billion shortfall by 2010 because of a mammoth bailout needed for the city's employee pension funds, which have seen investments tank in the spiraling national recession, according to a city budget report released Friday.

Sure, they're cutting some jobs, but look at all the new spending and hiring they're doing. On the news right now they're reporting about LA City Council voting to fund a $1.2 billion-development project to build a luxury hotel. And what about the high speed railsystem from San Diego to San Fran? The point is, LA and California spend a lot of money, so why is the $12,000 monthly salary for a fireman too big for you to swallow? Usually there's nothing too big for you to swallow.

Hell, a quick google search could've easily proven my "apocryphal firefighter" is in fact not so questionable. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. How are they able to earn so much? Is it because the number of fires magically leapt to historical highs over the last couple of years? Well, according to the article, that sounds unlikely:

Recruits earn overtime for after-hours remedial training "if they feel the need for more time to grasp the skills," a department spokeswoman said.

So, do you now still call bullshit on me, my CPA, and your mom the two of us were fucking when we told each other that story? Or does it seem possible (nay probable!) that maybe the city workers in unions here in LA (and all over California for that matter) are making a very good (and at times great) salary on our tax dollars?

My CPA also told me a story of an architect who got tired of struggling as a small business and having to pay so much in taxes, so he quit the private sector to make more money working for the city. You wanna call BS on my apocryphal architect?

And I do care about the taxes I have to pay. I envy you that you don't. You must've had a great life as a lawyer's son. Always having more than you owe. I wish we all could come from there so we could also take the same sanctimonious positions you do. Only people of privilege seem to say things like, "money isn't everything." As if they scowl at the rest of us for wanting better for ourselves. Now excuse me while I go back to that mom of yours I was fucking when I told you this story.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just expressing skepticism since it doesn't line up with either my personal experience, nor with objective analyses of the changes in tax law from 2009 to 2010. Since you don't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about why your taxes might be higher, there's not really any way for us to get to the bottom of the discrepancy in our viewpoints.

I can't say the same about your secondhand hearsay about a supposed fireman who's making six figures. I call bullshit on you, your CPA, and the pig the two of you were fucking when you told each other that story. It's either a total fabrication, or the guy's primary source of income has nothing to do with firefighting.

As for Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK, they're not in the same boat as the US. They're all engaged in much sterner deficit-reduction policy than the US has adopted or is likely to adopt in the near future. And to answer the question I posed to you, the net result is that they're just making things worse. What on paper should have reduced the budget didn't since it depressed the economy so much, and as a result they're no better off in terms of government debt, and much worse off when it comes to their general economies. Countries who took the liberal path like Canada and Sweeden are in pretty good shape. The US is pretty much splitting the difference, and while we're not getting worse anymore, we're not really recovering either.

I kinda feel sorry for you if you really think taxes are the only thing standing between you and a happy, satisfying life. A 35% raise wouldn't give that to me, nor would even a 350% raise. It'd be nice to have to be sure, but I feel like I've passed the point where even large increases in my income would have a qualitative impact on my overall quality of life. I don't really make all that much in the grand scheme of things either -- far less than your apocryphal firefighter.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that you don't care about wars, or humanitarian crises that happen to other people, just about how much taxes you have to pay and whether people you know make fun of you or not. Most people who feel that way don't have the guts to come right out and say so.

Just a word of advice, but money isn't everything. It can feel like it if you're not able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, or pay your medical bills, but beyond that happiness and satisfaction has a lot more to do with your emotional needs and the relationships you have with the people in your life than much of anything else.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, I'm certainly not lying. And it was 35% on my adjusted income, or what they call taxable income, I think. And it was in no way over or even in the same ballpark as $373k. Not even close.

I don't own. I rent. It is LA, after all. Buying a home in the city is tough. But I shouldn't be penalized for that, should I? We didn't get married last year, but we're certainly doing it this year. That may help next year, but why punish people who are single? Does that seem fair to you? And why punish those who don't want to work in the public sector or for a corporation? You know, I did employ two freelancers, so I create jobs this year. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that? It just makes zero sense to me.

I don't know why my tax is so high, to be honest. I have a CPA that deals with all of that. I just give him my itemized deductions and the amount I made, and he does the rest.

Yes, Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK are exactly the same as the US. Bravo. Their EU is part of their problem, but that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it? I like how you bipartisan types take someone's real problems and make a political statement out of them. You know, taxation of this magnitude is not a partisan issue. This affects real people with real lives. Right now in my life, the only thing that stands in the way of me building a better life and the ability for me to pursue my happiness is the government. I owe them every year, and every year it goes up, and every year the Democrats call me a liar. I don't understand that.

Meanwhile, my CPA tells me of some of his clients. The firemen and policemen in LA. One fireman, a captain for a firehouse, makes $12,000 a month, and he'll retire when he's 55, and he'll take home 90% of that for the rest of his life. Good for him. A police captain makes enough to buy a home in Malibu overlooking the water. According to my CPA, he's got one helluva beautiful manicured backyard, too. Good for him. Glad I can pay for it. And you wonder why some of us hate public unions. Because I have to pay for them to retire at the age of 55 and take home a pension for the rest of their lives, yet the small businessmen can't catch a break because we're just middle class. I hear it's a helluva lot easier to just get on welfare and ride that out for a while.

So, you can comeback all you want with "Spain! UK! Greece!" but it means little to people like me, because I don't give a damn about your partisan bullshit, and it's not worth my effort to sit here and point out the many flaws in that argument. I care about how this affects me. The wars, the world affairs, the humanitarian efforts, and whatever else to me is just a distraction. What's important is I shouldn't be raked over the coals, and then have a gaggle of confused statists scratching their heads and point fingers at me as if there was some taxation glitch in the system.

so did some more research... That museum opened in June 2009, and the episode of "Impossible Shots" that featured Ted Gundy was aired Feb 17 2010, so it was probably filmed late 2009. So he was 84 in the video, but is probably 86 now - so you could use either

That would make him born in ~1925. He was in the Battle of the Bulge (12/16/1944 – 1/25/1945) so he would have been ~19 at the time.

His tour of duty was cut short cause he lost his right leg by a German shell. (I couldn't even tell in the video that he was an amputee). Apparently he also marches in every Memorial Day parade.

(I upvoted the video before previous comment btw)

>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


Stop being so reasonable!

It is propaganda, just like a lot of Hollywood war films. And the government loves it - censors out what they don't approve of in exchange for renting out military vehicles to Hollywood for next to nothing.

The funny thing is, I hated that the army made a video game recruitment tool. But, to be honest at least it was difficult as $&&% directly in contrast to these big budget titles that make it "immersive" (immersive as in loud noises and yelling) and easy.


>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ghark:
Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.
Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.
Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.

Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.

Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.

How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.

I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.

A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/035233/Intel-Unveils-SSDs-With-6GbitSec-Throughput

FEB 4 2011

In his second State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called on Americans to reclaim our identity as a people who "do big things" and pledged new federal investment, particularly for scientific research.

We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology and especially clean energy technology. ... We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble the teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

---

people dont forget when you're wrong qm... but you seem to

Airdate = 24th Feb, 2011. >> ^ghark:

Best Colbert I've seen in a while. The news is a bit old though, when did it air?

*ban

Probably a self-link. member name: glendoo
YouTube user account: glandooproductions
Uploaded to YouTube: Feb 25, 2011 - today

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker sigh.

Here's Politifact on this topic. Here's a copy of the analysis done by Wisconsin's Legislative Reference Bureau (along with the actual text of the law, the key appears to be Section 188).

It's not just a whim, like "when we talk with unions, I would like to try to limit the negotiations to wages", it's him trying to pass legislation making it illegal for the collective bargaining agreements to cover anything but wages, and at that, making it impossible for unions to achieve any better than CPI-locked increases through bargaining. That's not being tough in negotiation, that's taking away the right to negotiate.

I agree with you, Walker is pretty clearly saying different things when he talks to the media. But that's because what he's saying doesn't match up to what he's actually doing.

Mea culpa. I was upset and shocked and it was late.

Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks for catching this.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

This is from an earlier Earthquake Sept 4th 2010, as the YT-description clearly says.
For an actual video of today's earthquake, go to: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&g
al_cid=1&gallery_id=116919

Wait wait wait.. did they just go to 30th of Feb?