Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Miss Nancy has her hands full with the likes of her and OAC
#1
Quote:Watch Venezuela Envoy Elliott Abrams Lose His Cool During Tense Exchange With Rep. Ilhan Omar
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#2
LOL.

When Al Queda and ISIS fight to the death, one should not take sides, only wish more kills to both.

Is this is the case here?

Perhaps not, Abrams is way more dangerous.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#3
No. Abrams is not dangerous - but Omar certainly is. She is a true lightweight, and is being managed and produced by backstage actors. She read the tirade against Abrams as if she had never seen it before delivering it, mispronouncing words and stumbling over how phrases were put together. Obviously she is just a talking head for some political group or puppet master.

How Ilhan Omar's attempt to shame Elliot Abrams backfired.

His 1992 book, Undue Process: A Story of How Political Differences are Turned into Crimes could straighten her out. It's about how Oliver North skated in the Iran-Contra lynching, so the anti-Reagan Dems pounced on Abrams. It made his arch nemesis, Aryeh Neier, do a 180° and support him.
Quote:It was this book that convinced one of Abrams’ major human rights critics, Aryeh Neier, to change his mind. Neier had been seen as Abrams’ arch-enemy in the era of the Central American wars, one who like Omar today, expressed satisfaction when Abrams was found guilty of misdemeanors. He had written a column in The Nation expressing his satisfaction when Abrams had been convicted, “because it seemed the appropriate denouement to a career in public office in which deceit had been a hallmark.”

After reading Abrams’ book years later, Neier had second thoughts, and wrote in Dissent that he “found its central points persuasive.” Agreeing with Abrams, he wrote that political differences over policy should be “dealt with through the political process and not by means of criminal law.” The way he had been indicted, Neier argued, “suggest a political prosecution rather than the fair administration of justice.” He thought that “Abrams’ argument that he was chosen as a target because the special prosecutor needed a recognizable scalp following [Oliver] North’s victory on appeal,” and that this was “buttressed by the evidence of timing.” If one read Abrams’ book, Neier concluded, it “should persuade fair-minded readers that the prosecution wronged him."
Reply
#4
Quote:No. Abrams is not dangerous - but Omar certainly is.

Omar does not have any blood on her hands yet. Just a fruitcake.

Abrams does, and a lot, over decades, including very recent.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#5
(02-17-2019, 01:16 PM)mv Wrote:
Quote:No. Abrams is not dangerous - but Omar certainly is.

Omar does not have any blood on her hands yet. Just a fruitcake.

Abrams does, and a lot, over decades, including very recent.

Why act like you have a clue, when you obviously have not read his book and certainly buy into disinformation without proof. Read his book before you post another word against Abrams. At least view the link I posted for you.
Reply
#6
You think if I read his book I would like him better?

Then, why not read Obama's books or Clinton's for fairness? Perhaps, understanding them will make us like them better! And why not read Mein Kampf, while we are into books? You definitely should, it will make uncle Adolf come out in 3D.

Admission: I know, since I read it and carefully.

But with footnote figures it is sufficient to look at the person's actions.

Abrams is a dirty war specialist, currently in charge of screwing up Venezuela -- to continue the US pattern of death and destruction previously applied to Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, ... and the list goes on. He is not personally responsible for millions of deaths caused by the US actions, but he is definitely responsible for some. Just last week he murdered fifty people on Haiti -- a side effect of the war on Venezuela, due to his limited capacity of analyzing the results of his actions.

I'm sure he has an excuse.

In Nuremberg, nearly everyone did.

Now, whom did Omar kill ?
Reply
#7
Why screw up Venezuela, when they have been doing such a great job of it themselves?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#8
(02-18-2019, 10:34 PM)mv Wrote: ...why not read Obama's books or Clinton's for fairness? Perhaps, understanding them will make us like them better!  And why not read Mein Kampf, while we are into books?  You definitely should, it will make uncle Adolf come out in 3D.

Please don't be an idiot. Of course I have read all those books. The more you understand, the better you can wrap your brain around disinformation when it is presented to you. Your problem is you have not read those books, and just accept the media's version, or worse, the disinformation, itself.

A point to consider: You say you hate Abrams... but the guy who hated him most and was his published arch nemesis, read the book and did a 180° and now totally supports him. You, on the other hand...
Reply
#9
(02-19-2019, 12:20 AM)John L Wrote: Why screw up Venezuela, when they have been doing such a great job of it themselves?

A very good question, actually.  

Three things come to mind : because the US wants to grab their oil (and bank accounts, including gold)... and because after losing four wars, Trump wants a victory.... and because US mission in the last twenty years is bringing death and destruction everywhere.

All three are likely true, but proportions are not certain.

----

No, Wm, I do not hate Abrams.  It is not possible to hate every minor criminal  in this Universe, there are just too many.  Abrams is no different from the others now forming Trump's team, and if anything, Bolton and Pompeo are larger figures, albeit still footnotes.  

I do hate the situation when these types formulate the policies.

And I categorically refuse to read anything written by minor figures of low intellectual abilities and no accomplishments, so let me skip Abrams, Hillary, Obama and millions of others -- life is too short.    On the other hand, I find it amusing when two trashy figures fight (Omar vs Abrams), it shows that they are good for something -- entertainment.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#10
(02-19-2019, 01:02 PM)mv Wrote: ... I categorically refuse to read anything written by minor figures of low intellectual abilities and no accomplishments...

You prove yourself to be in that low intellectual status. You are silly to think the dullards actually put pen to paper. Obama "authored" two biographies before he was famous, allegedly ghost-written for him by Bill Ayres. Moreover, these pieces are required to understand them - not because they are accurate, but because they show the disinformation they want you to believe. Therefore the only knowledge you have of these people is that put out by Fake News sources. You want to learn, Grasshopper? Then follow Dinesh D'Souza'a analysis of Obama's "Dreams From My Father."
Reply
#11
Sorry, Wm, you cannot me expect to lower myself to your level... saying irrational things and spicing them with cheap name calling -- this is just too sodomite for me. Cannot. S4

But I'll do something else: explain, politely and slowly (for smart people like you!) where you miss the point.

You see, there are many books out there. Amazon sells millions. Even if we restrict ourselves to political memoirs and autobiographies -- this is the the category all these people write in -- we still have hundreds of thousands. Our lives are not infinite, we cannot read all these books, especially that they are low value : designed to promote viewpoints of mostly unremarkable individuals. Abrams is merely a mid-level operative with no major successes to report, and I would not bother with characterizing Hillary or Obama.

You are interested in this kind of thing? -- sure, chose the successful operatives. There are many, Skorzeny, Sudoplatov, Eitingon.... the list goes on.

But again, we do not live long enough to read ALL these books, so be selective. And even if our lifespan were infinite we still would not be able to catch up with everything that gets written in this genre..... lol... perhaps reading all this crap stuff is the ultimate punishment they award in Hell.....

In addition of books written about or by people who are interesting, there are also books written by unremarkable midlevel or even minor figures that *MAY* have valuable information, only because the source was on the spot. Such sources should be read too, of course, and the challenge is to identify them. A current example of such book is McCabe's -- I already know the jewel in it (may explain later -- or not), and I can recommend you reading it. After all, McCabe is a figure of about the same level and qualities as Abrams.

Hopefully, I expressed this in sufficiently simple terms so Your Geniulity can comprehend the obvious. S6
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#12
(02-21-2019, 01:10 AM)mv Wrote: ...In addition of books written about or by people who are interesting, there are also books written by unremarkable midlevel or even minor figures that *MAY* have valuable information, only because the source was on the spot.  Such sources should be read too, of course, and the challenge is to identify them.   A current example of such book is McCabe's -- I already know the jewel in it (may explain later -- or not), and I can recommend you reading it.  After all, McCabe is a figure of about the same level and qualities as Abrams.

Hopefully, I expressed this in sufficiently simple terms so Your Geniulity can comprehend the obvious. S6

Actually, you confirmed your own shortcomings, once again. Since I have read most of the books you recommend, but also have digested the ones you consider beneath your dignity, it is impossible to be at your bereft level.

I urged you to read the Abrams book because it would correct your ignorance over his abilities and history. Since you are ignorant of it all, please don't preach about yout superiority. I tried to pique your interest by pointing out that this book changed the worldview of his most vocal antagonist. Nevermind. It is obviously beyond your interest level.

I may read McCabe, but only if it is available free. His perjury marks it at a low priority. The main thrust of his explanation is to stop outsiders from entering his realm of insiders.
Reply
#13
(02-21-2019, 08:07 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Actually, you confirmed your own shortcomings, once again. Since I have read most of the books you recommend, but also have digested the ones you consider beneath your dignity, it is impossible to be at your bereft level.

I urged you to read the Abrams book because it would correct your ignorance over his abilities and history.
Slightly more civil this time, it is a progress sign!  As Lao Tsu said, "千里之行,始於足下".

Now, we do have one new surprising trend... putting words in my mouth, it is really so unexpectedly girlish of you, I don't know what to think. Hope the transition goes well for you! 

Specifically: I never said that reading Abrams is beneath my dignity or anything similar to it.  Simply, that one has to choose wisely from among millions of books out there.  One reads a book if the author is remarkable, and Abrams is just is not -- he is just good enough to look at his bio, it tells us enough. So we shall, perhaps I missed something indeed ? 

A mid-level official (hundreds of such in the US history, most forgotten), lawyer by education (means little), three main actions that are suitable for grading.

Act 1. Iran-Contra affair, Abrams in charge of removing Sandinista government using armed criminal gangs.
Result: 30 years since who is ruling Nicaragua? LOL, Sandinista.  The orangehead is hysterical about central american migrants attacking US borders .. but they do not come from Nicaragua --- they come from countries with US-loyal regimes.  
One wonders why.

Grade:  F.

Act 2.  Iraq.  Per Wiki :

Quote:Abrams was promoted to be his Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, in charge of promoting Bush's strategy of "advancing democracy abroad." In the Bush administration, Abrams was a key architect behind the Iraq War.
[color][font]
LOL.  I thought architects build things... not destroy them... "advancing democracy" is quite funny too... but let's see the
Result:  hundreds of thousand dead, refugee waves,  cities brought to ruins (Mosul), and no gain for the US -- the new Iraqi government will have the remaining invaders out of the country, within months.  It is also strongly allied with Iran.  

Grade: F.

Act 3.  Venezuela.  Abrams in charge of removing the elected government and  implementing democracy promotion death and destruction.  Ill prepared (will not go into details), Maduro is still fully in charge, and even if the US escalates and manages to remove him by force, the result will be another Vietnam... long war in a country covered by jungles.  

Grade: F, provisional.

GPA : hmm... it is 0 or 1 ? 

In between these big acts Abrams was busy doing the usual: lobbying, which is merely converting taxpayers money into his own, a legalized form of corruption in the Entity.   Not grading this part.

So: what is so remarkable about this individual?   

Oh, yeah, forgot.  He is kinda skinny comparing to Pompeo.  Internal parasites? 

Now, McCabe:  same type of creature, just with little (or no) blood on his hands.  No reasons to read him too ... except for ONE quote from Trump he provides, and it is remarkable.  I may give it later and save you some library trips.

(LOL.....  you know, if the material is worth reading, it is also worth paying for. Usually. S6  )


[/font][/color]
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#14
MV writes,


Quote:Three things come to mind : because the US wants to grab their oil (and bank accounts, including gold)... and because after losing four wars, Trump wants a victory.... and because US mission in the last twenty years is bringing death and destruction everywhere.

I highly doubt America wants to steal their oil when they have abundant oil at home, it makes no sense and doesn't meets the stated Foreign policy objective.
Reply
#15
At this time NOBODY has abundant oil (or natural gas, for that matter). Anyone thinking of the future would have such ideas, and Trump definitely has.

And I highly doubt that stated Foreign policy objectives include stealing oil, or destructive wars, or even regime changes! Typically the term used is "democracy and human rights promotion" S6
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#16
(02-22-2019, 12:57 PM)mv Wrote: At this time NOBODY has abundant oil (or natural gas, for that matter).  Anyone thinking of the future would have such ideas, and Trump definitely has....

Once again, is there anyone, but you, who ever alleges per-eminence in genius-level thinking? You seem to not know that hydrocarbons are now considered a renewable resource, with nothing to do with fossils? Ask John or anyone else in this forum to bring you up to speed.

Seeing that the USA has more fuel resources than any other nation on Earth, it does you no good to play the innocent. Now, if you campaigned on the USA doing what France has done and use nuclear power as its main energy source, and also recycle nuclear waste effectively instead of isolate and store it, you might have a purpose.

Instead of Wikkopediaing Abrams, why not read the book recommended to you, so you truly understand, instead of copying and pasting someone else's words, to pretend they are your words? Why the need to peacock?
Reply
#17
(02-22-2019, 12:57 PM)mv Wrote: At this time NOBODY has abundant oil (or natural gas, for that matter).  Anyone thinking of the future would have such ideas, and Trump definitely has.

And I highly doubt that stated Foreign policy objectives include stealing oil, or destructive wars, or even regime changes!  Typically the term used is "democracy and human rights promotion" S6

Jeeze, talk about cynicism. S13
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#18
(02-22-2019, 12:57 PM)mv Wrote: At this time NOBODY has abundant oil (or natural gas, for that matter).  Anyone thinking of the future would have such ideas, and Trump definitely has.

And I highly doubt that stated Foreign policy objectives include stealing oil, or destructive wars, or even regime changes!  Typically the term used is "democracy and human rights promotion" S6

So far you provide ZERO evidence to back up your assertions....

Waiting.... waiting...…………...
Reply
#19
Quote:You seem to not know that hydrocarbons are now considered a renewable resource, with nothing to do with fossils? Ask John or anyone else in this forum to bring you up to speed.

Considered by whom ? By you?

There is indeed a very attractive theory of abiotic origins of hydrocarbons, which is entirely unproven and contradicts the observed reality: production in most places is shrinking and known available resources are not increasing. Check the numbers. Or find any significant sources that came back to original production -- such do not exist.

And
Quote:So far you provide ZERO evidence

It is not so interesting to provide evidence that anyone can easily obtain with google and writing popular articles for you is not my intention. Go over oil and gas production countries and see where we stand now. For example, North Sea:

[Image: _73184635_north_sea_oil_and_gas_624.gif]

Plenty of evidence of renewable resource here ? LOL.

Check others -- yourself. I did.

Quote:Instead of Wikkopediaing Abrams, why not read the book recommended to you, so you truly understand, instead of copying and pasting someone else's words

Back to kindergarten stupidity now....

Inherently biased Abrams (or any author) is more reliable than occasionally biased source?

But do not worry about biases: Just check what was copied from Wiki : the architect title. The role of Abrams in the Iraqi war is well documented and this is what matters. And I'm sure even Abrams book does not deny his role. S6
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#20
MV, you stated:


Quote:At this time NOBODY has abundant oil (or natural gas, for that matter). Anyone thinking of the future would have such ideas, and Trump definitely has.

I then replied:


Quote:So far you provide ZERO evidence to back up your assertions....


You come back with a tiny area of the planet called the North Sea, which means you FAILED to back up your assertion, sorry but you are talking to the wrong person when you ended with this:


Quote:Plenty of evidence of renewable resource here ? LOL.

Check others -- yourself. I did.

I have a friend who is a Petroleum Engineer, who made several comments that I have posted elsewhere in reply to another peak oil moron, who like YOU thinks we are running out, when actually there are plenty more left.

Quoting a comment he POSTED HERE
[url=https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/whatever-happened-to-fears-over-peak-oil/#comment-2391960][/url]
Where to start?

Peak oil is real and irrelevant. Oil is a finite commodity. In general, global production will follow a logistic function. The ultimate peak production rate will occur sometime around when we’ve recovered half of the recoverable resource. The total recoverable resource is unknown, but very fracking YUGE. Much YUGER than Hubbert thought it was. 

Here’s how Peak Oil works: As of the end of 2014, total US cumulative production was 212 Bbbl, proved reserves were 40 Bbbl and the estimated total undiscovered recoverable resource was 130 Bbbl. If that was the sum total of the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR), then US Peak Oil occurred in 2004…

[Image: hubbert.png]
This doesn’t mean that the production rate literally peaked in 2004. It means that a hundred years from now, if you fit a logistic function to the data, the peak would be around 2004. However, proved reserves are a moving target because they only represent a fraction of the oil that is likely to be produced from existing fields. “Reserves” has a very specific legal definition. In the US, “reserves” generally means proved reserves (1P). In less regulated nations, “reserves” often includes probable (2P) and/or possible (3P) reserves. Most of the “off limits” areas would fall under “prospective resources”…

[Image: spe_reserves.png]

A lot more in his long comment he made.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Driving Miss Nancy John L 38 9,487 09-07-2018, 07:12 AM
Last Post: John L
  Miss Hezbollah Rima Fakih Wins Miss USA Canuknucklehead 8 2,730 05-17-2010, 11:50 PM
Last Post: John L
  Carter Likes Hamas Palladin 3 1,007 06-20-2007, 05:22 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)